visualize_workflow_hierarchical

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral traits like detecting logical sections, resolving Get/Set virtual wires, and producing different views. However, it does not mention side effects or permissions, though for a visualization tool these are minimal.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second explains features, third provides usage advice. No redundant words, front-loaded with key information.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the major aspects: purpose, usage context, and parameter roles. It mentions output types (overview, detail, list, summary) but could be more explicit about return format for each view, though the 'view' parameter descriptions help.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3), and the description adds significant context: it explains each view type in detail (e.g., 'compact diagram with sections as summary nodes'), clarifies that 'section' is required when view=detail, and mentions defaults for 'direction' and 'show_values'.

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 clearly states 'Visualize a large ComfyUI workflow as a hierarchical diagram' with specific features like detecting logical sections and resolving virtual wires. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'visualize_workflow' by focusing on large workflows (20+ nodes) and hierarchical structure.

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 says 'Best for workflows with 20+ nodes,' providing clear usage context. Though it does not explicitly name alternatives, the sibling list includes 'visualize_workflow' which likely serves smaller workflows, implying when not to use this tool.

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