comfy_suggest_timeout

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds details about walking the workflow, finding output nodes, and returning the largest matching timeout plus the node that drove the decision, providing meaningful extra behavioral transparency beyond the 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 concise and well-structured, with a clear overview, context, behavior, and a short Args section. It contains no unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

The description gives enough context about the default timeout and the return value (largest matching timeout plus node) even without an output schema. It covers the essential purpose and expected result, making it reasonably complete for the simple tool.

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?

There is only one parameter (workflow) and the schema treats it as a generic object with additionalProperties true. The description clarifies it is an 'API-format workflow dict,' but does not detail any required fields or structure. This is partial semantic guidance but not comprehensive given the loose 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 clearly states the tool recommends an HTTP timeout based on output nodes. It mentions the default ComfyPilot timeout and the motivation for exceeding it, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like comfy_recommend_runtime or comfy_set_limits, so the purpose is specific but not fully distinguished.

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 explains when the default timeout is insufficient and what the tool does, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides context but lacks a clear 'use this when' directive.

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