Explain a failed n8n execution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it is deterministic and rule-based, and details what analysis covers (0-item nodes, unresolved expressions, errors, token usage). No contradiction.

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?

Four sentences, each delivering key info: purpose, input format, output highlights, common pain point. No redundant or unnecessary text. Front-loaded with primary purpose.

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 single parameter, clear annotations, and presence of output schema, the description covers all needed context: what tool does, what input to provide (with sourcing hints), and what output to expect. Also addresses edge case of silent item disappearance.

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?

Only one parameter 'execution' with schema description covering 100%. The tool description adds practical guidance on how to obtain the JSON (UI 'Show details' or API call), which enriches the schema description.

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?

Description clearly states it diagnoses failed/surprising executions, with specific verb 'Diagnose' and resource 'n8n execution'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'execution.list' and 'execution.replay' by focusing on explanation rather than listing or replaying.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: for debugging failed or surprising executions. Provides guidance on obtaining input via UI or API. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but context implies it's post-execution only. Good but could be slightly more precise.

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