comfy_search_nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the matching semantics (case-insensitive substring match) and the response shape (matches list with total count), which goes beyond what the annotations and schema alone convey. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior in the first line, followed by a compact standard Args/Returns docstring. Every sentence earns its place: the matching semantics, the two parameters, and the return shape. There is zero filler or redundancy with the structured fields.

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?

For a simple search tool with an output schema, rich annotations covering safety, and both parameters explained in the description, the tool is well-specified. The description adequately covers search behavior, arguments, and return format. The only minor gap is lack of example usage or pagination details, but given the tool's low complexity this is not a significant omission.

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 compensation burden and does so: it documents 'query: Search query string' and 'limit: Maximum number of results to return', adding meaning beyond the raw schema types. The parameter meanings are clear, though terse—query semantics are self-evident and limit's default of 20 is left to the schema.

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 states a specific action: 'Search for nodes by name' with an explicit qualifier of 'case-insensitive substring match'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like comfy_get_node_info (which retrieves a specific node's details) and comfy_list_node_types (which enumerates all node types), making the tool's purpose precise and 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 context (when you need to find nodes matching a name substring) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not name alternative tools. Given siblings like comfy_get_node_info, comfy_list_node_types, and comfy_search_hub, there is no clarifying exclusion or pointer to when searching is the right choice versus listing or fetching.

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