list_workflow_slots

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it: it reveals this is a read wrapper over `comfy workflow slots <path>`, defines the slot/ADDR model, documents the A/B.name vs A.name addressing scheme, notes that both kinds come back in an `address` field, and explicitly excludes Note/MarkdownNote text. This is rich behavioral context well beyond a bare 'list' statement.

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 front-loaded with a crisp one-line purpose, followed by four sentences that each earn their place: the ADDR explanation, the addressing scheme with a concrete example, and the exclusion note. No filler or restatement of the schema; the density is justified by the genuinely non-obvious address semantics.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what the tool returns, and it does: slots carry a stable ADDR plus current value, both kinds of addresses come back in an `address` field. Combined with the pointed exclusion and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this tool and correctly consume its output with set_workflow_slot/vary_workflow.

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 maps the single workflow_path parameter to the CLI `<path>` via 'Wraps comfy workflow slots <path>' and adds that the path points to a frontend-format workflow, which gives the agent useful context beyond the bare 'Workflow Path' title. It could be more explicit about path format requirements, but for a single self-explanatory parameter this is solid compensation.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('List the agent-tweakable slots a frontend-format workflow exposes') and distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming list_workflow_notes as the alternative for note text and set_workflow_slot/vary_workflow as the consumers of slot ADDRs. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and is not without opening any schema.

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 routing guidance: use list_workflow_notes for Note/MarkdownNote text, pass a slot's ADDR to set_workflow_slot/vary_workflow to change it, and the stated use case ('an agent can see what a template exposes without hand-reading the JSON') tells an agent when to choose this tool. Exclusions and alternatives are both explicit.

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