list_partner_models

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the list is PINNED, a curated allowlist in the installed comfy-cli's code, and explains that absence is not evidence of nonexistence—directing the fix to an upgrade rather than a refresh. It also notes that one row can represent a model family, which is critical to avoid misinterpreting the output. These are non-obvious behavioral traits disclosed beyond the basic listing action.

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 structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Freshness) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It is long but each sentence adds value—no fluff. The only minor nit is that the freshness paragraph could be tightened, but overall it is well-organized and scannable.

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?

With no output schema, the description specifies the exact return structure ({total, shown, offset, filters, models} and each model's fields). It also mentions the sibling partner_model_schema for parameter details, and explains the pinned allowlist behavior. For a tool with five optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects an agent would need to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains style/partner/query as filters forwarded to comfy-cli with exact/substring matching, and notes that an unfiltered call reveals the real category strings. For limit/offset, it gives defaults (100, 0), the cap (200), and pagination logic (page while shown < total). Every parameter is meaningfully clarified beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the hosted PARTNER models partner_generate can run.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is 'the ONLY source of the partner alias catalog' and explicitly contrasts with nodes/search_templates, which read the local install. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does or how it differs from related tools.

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 clear context on when to use the tool—when you need the list of hosted partner models for partner_generate. It also gives behavioral guidance on filtering and pagination, and advises following with partner_model_schema. It indirectly distinguishes from nodes/search_templates by noting they read the local install, but does not explicitly state 'use this instead of X when Y.' Still, the guidance is strong enough to route an agent appropriately.

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