comfyui_list_nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'all available' and pagination, which is already implied by the schema. It does not contradict 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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a clearly formatted Args block. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the redundancy with schema is minimal and harmless.

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?

This is a simple read-only listing tool with complete schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema. The description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior and parameters; no additional information is needed.

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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for limit and offset, including defaults and bounds. The description repeats these details without adding deeper semantic meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 'List all available ComfyUI node types' with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('node types'). This distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like comfyui_list_models and comfyui_list_workflows.

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 context is clear: use this tool to list node types, with pagination parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for detailed node info, use comfyui_get_node_info). The lack of exclusions is the only gap from a 5.

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