list_models

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool 'Asks ComfyUI itself,' meaning it depends on a running ComfyUI instance and reflects live configuration. It also explains the risk of disk scans due to mapped model folders, giving useful context beyond a simple list operation. However, it does not mention error behavior or authentication assumptions, which keeps it from a 5.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence summary, a short explanatory paragraph about why it differs from disk scans, and a clean Args list. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy, making it easy to scan.

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?

Given the output schema exists and this is a read-only listing operation, the description covers the core requirements: purpose, behavior, rationale, and parameter usage. It lacks explicit mention of failure modes (e.g., ComfyUI not running), but that is implied by 'Asks ComfyUI itself' and does not undermine effective use. The description is robust and complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 explain all three parameters. It does so thoroughly: folder lists example values and default behavior (empty means folder names), search is specified as case-insensitive substring filter, and limit is defined as maximum files returned. This fully compensates for the bare schema and adds meaningful guidance.

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 immediately states the exact function: 'List the models ComfyUI can actually load.' It goes further by distinguishing this from a plain disk scan, clarifying that it queries ComfyUI itself to honor extra_model_paths.yaml. This sets it apart from any filesystem-based listing and clearly identifies the resource and verb.

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: use this tool to get the list of models ComfyUI actually accepts, especially when extra_model_paths.yaml is in play. It explicitly advises against a plain disk scan, offering a concrete 'when not to use' scenario. It doesn't name alternative sibling tools like download_model, but the guidance is strong enough to avoid misuse.

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