comfy_list_models

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is to add context. It does so by specifying pagination behavior (limit/offset), the optional include_non_model_files flag and what it includes, and the fact that the folders are those exposed by the connected ComfyUI instance. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is highly efficient: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of parameters. It front-loads the core purpose ('List models in a folder with pagination') and each sentence earns its place with no redundant fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that an output schema exists, the description wisely avoids describing return details and focuses on usage, prerequisites, and parameter semantics. It fully covers the listing behavior, pagination, and the optional non-model file inclusion, making it complete for this tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the full burden for parameter documentation. It does this excellently: folder is explained with concrete examples and a cross-reference to comfy_list_model_folders, limit/offset are defined as pagination controls, and include_non_model_files is detailed with specific file types. This is a perfect compensation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'List models in a folder with pagination' and mentions the structured return type (ModelList). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like comfy_search_models (search across folders) or comfy_list_model_folders (list folders), making its purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear prerequisite by instructing users to call comfy_list_model_folders to see valid folders, which is a valuable pointer. However, it stops short of explicitly stating when not to use this tool versus alternatives like comfy_search_models or comfy_refresh_models, so it does not fully meet the 'explicit when/when-not' criterion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.