n8n: List projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a safe read. It adds a licensing/authorization prerequisite the agent cannot get from annotations, but it omits pagination behavior despite exposing limit (default 100) and cursor, and says nothing about what the response contains.

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 definition is short and front-loaded with the resource and the enterprise tag. However, the final sentence ('All parameters are OPTIONAL') is not merely wasteful but actively incorrect given the required 'site' field, so not every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the required 'site' and the limit/cursor pagination model. Instead it mislabels all parameters as optional and gives no return-value or paging context, leaving the agent under-informed for a three-parameter tool.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for three parameters and does not explain limit or cursor at all. Worse, 'All parameters are OPTIONAL' directly conflicts with the schema's required 'site' parameter, which could lead an agent to omit it and fail the call.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List all projects') and tags license scope ('[Enterprise]'), which is enough to identify the operation. It does not distinguish this from the sibling tools 'list_projects' or the other *_list_projects variants, so an agent must rely on the 'n8n_' prefix to disambiguate.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'; there is no statement of when to choose this tool over siblings such as n8n_list_users or n8n_list_workflows. The one genuine guideline is the license prerequisite ('Requires n8n Enterprise/Pro license'), which is useful but not a when-to-use rule.

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