search_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it performs a search without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, what the response format is (though output schema exists), or any potential limitations. For a search tool, this lack of context leaves the agent without clear expectations about side effects or return behavior.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and includes all key filter dimensions without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's simple search purpose, the presence of a comprehensive input schema, and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this over sibling node-related tools, so it falls slightly short of being fully complete.

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 covers all four parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond summarizing the filter dimensions. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents each parameter effectively, and the description does not add new semantic meaning.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource 'ComfyUI nodes' while listing the search dimensions (name, category, input/output type). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_node_schema, which retrieves a schema for a specific node.

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 the tool should be used when users need to find nodes matching name, category, or input/output type criteria. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like list_api_nodes or get_node_schema, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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