diagnose_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds transparency by stating that the tool only proposes fixes and that actual modification should happen through edit_workflow or port_workflow, which is consistent with the annotations and extends the behavioral context.

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 dense but short: two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and follow-up routing placed at the end. Every clause earns its place without wasting the agent's attention.

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 read-only diagnostic tool with one obvious parameter and an output schema, the description gives enough guidance for correct invocation and follow-up. It clarifies relationship with validate_workflow, edit_workflow, and port_workflow, so the agent can decide when and how to use it.

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?

There is only one parameter, workflow_id, and its name plus schema type already make the meaning obvious. Although schema description coverage is 0%, the low parameter complexity and the repeated workflow context in the description reduce the impact of having no additional parameter-level explanation.

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 starts with a concrete verb ('Deep-check') and identifies the exact resource ('workflow') and the expected outcome ('propose fixes'). It explicitly positions itself as a superset of validate_workflow and adds Comfy Registry resolution for missing custom-node classes, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools.

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 clear selection context: use this for old/broken workflows that need deeper diagnosis and repair proposals, and it routes follow-up actions to edit_workflow or port_workflow for model-family moves. It does not explicitly say 'when not to use this tool', but the superset relationship with validate_workflow, plus the explicit alternatives makes the usage boundary fairly clear.

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