comfy_search_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds specific behavioral context: 'case-insensitive substring match on node class_type' and the return format ('JSON with matching history entries'), which goes beyond the annotation hints and is useful for invocation.

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 exceptionally concise: a one-line purpose, a structured Args section, and a Returns line. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler. The format is ideal for quick understanding.

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 the simple tool (2 params, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema (as indicated), the description is sufficient. It covers the purpose, the parameters, and the return type. It could mention edge cases or the exact structure of returned entries, but since there is an output schema, that is not strictly necessary. Overall, it's adequately complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 carries the full burden. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: query is described as a case-insensitive substring match on class_type, and limit is defined as max matches with a default of 20. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions, though it doesn't add extra nuance beyond what's necessary.

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 'Search history for prompts containing specific node types' – a specific verb ('search'), resource ('history'), and scope ('node types'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like comfy_search_nodes (searches node definitions) and comfy_get_history (retrieves history), making it 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 implies usage through its purpose but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., comfy_search_nodes or comfy_get_history). There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so guidance is more implied than explicit.

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