list_workflow_notes

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses the wrapped command, the note types surfaced, the untrusted-data warning, the exact return shape, the normal 'count: 0' case, and graceful degradation on older comfy-cli versions. This far exceeds what structured fields provide.

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 longer than average, but every sentence adds meaningful operational value: purpose, wrapping, differentiators, rejection behavior, security handling, return shape, and degradation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and the alternative tool.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully documents the return value ('{"workflow", "count", "notes"}') and the edge cases of zero notes and unsupported CLI versions. For a single-parameter listing tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema only declares workflow_path as a required string with 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It does: 'comfy workflow notes <path>' clarifies the parameter is a path, and 'frontend-format workflow' plus the API-format rejection narrows what kind of path is valid. Minor syntax details like absolute vs relative paths are not specified, but the core semantics are clear.

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 documentation notes a frontend-format workflow carries.' It also differentiates itself from the sibling list_workflow_slots by stating these notes are 'not included' there, so an agent can distinguish the tools clearly.

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 gives explicit context: it needs no running ComfyUI, warns that an API-format export is rejected, and routes the agent to 're-fetch with fetch_template' in that case. It also identifies list_workflow_slots as the alternative that does not include these notes.

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