search_node_packs

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

Annotations already report readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent, and the description's 'search' wording is consistent. It adds the domain context of the Comfy Registry, but it does not disclose extra behavioral details such as rate limits, result size, pagination, or permissions.

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?

A single sentence that explains the operation, resource, scope, and examples real.true. There is no filler, repetition, or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

This compact one-parameter, read-only, idempotent search tool with an output schema needs only modest explanation. The description succeeds exception it could not mention whether the query accepts natural language, exact terms, or a specific search syntax.

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?

The schema only says 'query' is a string, so the description must compensate for the bare schema. It tells the agent that the query should be a capability and gives meaningful examples ('face detailer', 'wildcards', 'video interpolation'), making the parameter's intended semantics clear despite no extra schema help.

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 an operation ('search'), a resource ('Comfy Registry node packs'), and the search facet ('by capability') with concrete examples. This distinguishes it from sibling search_nodes because it targets node packs rather than nodes or other resources.

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 capability examples imply when the tool should be used, but the description never explains when to prefer it over search_nodes or another sibling. There is no explicit exclusion, alternative routing, or contextual condition beyond the phrase 'by capability.'

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