get_node_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns the 'full input/output schema,' which provides some behavioral detail, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., read-only nature), error handling, or prerequisites like the node class needing to exist. It is not misleading but lacks depth.

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 a single, well-formed sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema (which likely documents return values), the description is sufficient. It could note that the node class must be valid or exist, but the simplicity of the operation makes this a minor gap, 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?

The input schema already fully describes the only parameter (class_type) with an example. The description adds context about the schema being 'full input/output,' but it does not add further meaning to the parameter itself. Baseline of 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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's action: 'Get the full input/output schema for a ComfyUI node class.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full input/output schema'), and this distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_workflow or search_nodes by focusing specifically on node class schemas.

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 when you need a node's schema, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like search_nodes or get_features. No exclusions or alternative tool guidance is provided, so it is only minimally useful for choosing between tools.

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