list_api_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds context that these are cloud-based and run via the Comfy.org API proxy, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like read-only status, pagination, or network dependence. For a simple listing tool, the added context is adequate but not rich.

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 three sentences: a clear headline, a brief context about the resource type, and actionable next steps. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool is simple with no required parameters and an output schema present. The description explains what the tool lists, the nature of the nodes, and how to proceed (schema lookup then execution). It could mention limitations like provider availability, but the existing coverage is sufficient for this level of complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the two optional parameters (query and output_type). The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'List available API nodes' which is a specific verb+resource. It lists concrete examples (Kling, Runway, Luma, etc.) and differentiates from siblings like get_node_schema (details) and run_api_node (execution) by framing this as the discovery step.

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 provides a clear usage context: list nodes first, then get schema, then run. It names the alternative tools (get_node_schema, run_api_node) in a natural workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the workflow implies its role as a starting point.

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