n8n: Get execution data

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add operational context. It adds that the payload spans all node inputs and outputs, implying a potentially large response, but says nothing about response size limits, truncation, or binary data handling.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and no filler words. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix is unexplained noise but otherwise the structure is efficient.

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 tool returning full node-level execution data, the description omits the scale and shape of the response and documents neither required parameter. With no output schema and no annotation coverage of behavior, an agent could easily invoke it against a huge execution without knowing what to expect.

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 description coverage is 0% for both required parameters (site, execution_id), and the description compensates for neither. It never clarifies what "site" identifies or what format an execution_id takes, leaving the agent to guess both 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?

"Get full execution data including all node inputs and outputs" states a specific verb and resource scope, and the node-level detail hints at how it differs from a plain execution-metadata sibling. It stops short of naming the alternative explicitly, so the distinction is inferable rather than stated.

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?

"Useful for debugging" implies a use case but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rules and never points to a sibling such as n8n_get_execution for lighter metadata lookups. The guidance is suggestive rather than actionable.

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