list_workflows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the filtering mechanism (MCP tag) and governance boundary, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, describe return format, or mention pagination/rate limits. For a list operation, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 only two sentences, direct and front-loaded with the action. Every word contributes, explaining both what it does and why the tag matters. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides adequate context: it names the resource, the filtering criteria, and the governance significance. It could add details about return values or pagination, but for a list tool, the description is fairly complete.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema is empty. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, but also adds no extra parameter context. Since there are no parameters to clarify, this score is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: 'Lists n8n workflows opted in through the configured MCP tag.' It uses a specific verb (lists) and resource (n8n workflows) and adds scope via the tag, distinguishing it from siblings like execute_workflow or get_execution_status.

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 implies when to use this tool—to discover workflows the agent may call, governed by the MCP tag. It provides context about the governance boundary but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This is clear context without exclusions, so a 4.

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