n8n_health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but fails to specify what 'healthy' means (e.g., HTTP 200, specific JSON response), failure modes, or whether authentication is required to access the n8n instance.

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 core description is a single concise sentence. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata leakage rather than descriptive content, slightly diminishing the structural quality.

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 simple health check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description inadequately covers the parameter semantics and behavioral expectations. Without annotations, the description should disclose more about the operation's nature and the required 'site' parameter format.

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 has 0% description coverage for the required 'site' parameter, and the description adds no information about what constitutes a valid site value (URL, ID, name) or its format. While 'site' is somewhat semantically intuitive, the lack of any documentation leaves a significant gap given the low schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states the tool checks if an n8n instance is healthy and accessible using specific verbs and resource identification. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar health check siblings like check_all_projects_health or directus_health_check, and the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative health check tools (e.g., check_all_projects_health, get_project_health, n8n_get_instance_info) or under what conditions to prefer it over other diagnostics. No prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned.

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