comfyui_search_custom_nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds context about the return format (name, description, author, install status, version, ID) and search scope. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured with a clear one-line purpose followed by Args and Returns sections. It is not overly verbose, though the Args section repeats schema details. The main sentence is front-loaded and every section serves a 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?

For a search tool with pagination and filters, the description explains the return format and search scope. It covers the essential behavior adequately. Combined with rich annotations and full schema coverage, it is nearly complete, though it could mention what 'install status' entails or pagination limits explicitly.

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 of all three parameters with descriptions and constraints. The description's Args section mostly duplicates this information, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 searches installed custom node packs by name, description, or author, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_extensions or get_custom_node_status by focusing on search functionality.

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 for finding installed packages matching a query, but does not explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives like listing all extensions or checking status. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative tool references, so it is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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