nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It exceeds expectations by revealing that the tool reads live from object_info every call, that close-match results are guesses (not certain matches), that a minimum comfy-cli version is required, and that invalid parameter/action combinations are rejected.

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 long but justified by the tool's complexity. It is well-structured with a purpose-led opening, an action-by-action bulleted list, a separate parameter-constraint paragraph, and a freshness note. Every sentence carries useful information and none is filler.

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 13-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description addresses action semantics, parameter applicability, defaults, and edge behaviors. However, return values are only sketched ('full input/output schema', 'filtered browse', 'connection types by connectivity'); a bit more precision on response shape would make it fully complete, though it is enough for correct invocation.

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 each parameter to the specific actions where it is valid, explains the meaning of each action (search token-matching, upstream/downstream direction, path chains), and gives defaults (action=search, max_depth=6, max_paths=10). This adds substantial semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 first sentence states a specific set of verbs and a resource: 'Search, inspect, filter, or graph-walk node classes in the LOCAL live catalog.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_templates or search_models by scope (node classes) and locality (local live catalog), without needing to name alternatives.

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 thorough guidance on when to use each action mode, including defaults, valid parameter combinations, and version requirements. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool in favor of another, so it falls short of a 5.

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