n8n_list_executions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions returning 'execution history' but fails to explain pagination behavior (despite 'cursor' and 'limit' parameters), the effect of 'include_data', or any rate limiting. It does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation, though the verb 'List' suggests it.

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 compact at three sentences and front-loads the core purpose. However, the '[UNIFIED]' tag adds noise without value, and the inclusion of an incorrect 'date' filter wastes the limited space on inaccurate information rather than explaining actual parameters like 'cursor' or 'include_data'.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to document 4 of 6 parameters (site, include_data, limit, cursor) and contains an erroneous reference to a non-existent date filter. For a pagination-enabled list tool, the omission of pagination semantics is a significant gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but falls short. It mentions filtering by 'status' and 'workflow' (workflow_id) but incorrectly claims filtering by 'date' when no such parameter exists in the schema. It completely ignores the required 'site' parameter and the 'include_data', 'limit', and 'cursor' parameters, leaving their semantics undocumented.

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 'List workflow executions' with specific filters and return value ('Returns execution history'). The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unnecessary metadata, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling 'n8n_get_execution', but the verb choice 'List' effectively implies bulk retrieval vs. single-item retrieval.

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 notes that 'All filter parameters are OPTIONAL,' which provides basic usage context for when filters can be omitted. However, it fails to specify when to use this tool versus 'n8n_get_execution' for single execution retrieval, or prerequisites like requiring a site parameter.

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