comfy_search_techniques

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the search scope (name, description, tags) and the default limit. It does not describe return format or pagination, but an output schema exists, lowering the burden. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise and well-structured, with a single-sentence purpose statement followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence earns its place; no redundant or vague wording. It is front-loaded with the core action and then provides necessary parameter details.

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 3 parameters, the description is complete enough: it documents all parameters, the search scope, and the default limit. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Annotations cover safety. The only minor gap is explicit usage guidance relative to alternatives, which is already scored under a separate dimension.

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 parameter burden. It explicitly documents all three parameters: query (text search in name, description, tags), tags (optional filter list), and limit (max results, default 20). This adds meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults, fully compensating for the coverage gap.

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 workflow techniques by text query and/or tags' with a specific verb (search), resource (workflow techniques), and method (text/tags). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like comfy_search_models, comfy_search_nodes, and comfy_search_history by explicitly targeting a different resource type.

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 by the resource type and search mechanism, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where one should prefer comfy_list_techniques (for listing all) or other search tools, nor any exclusions. This is adequate but leaves the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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