n8n_list_projects

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions licensing constraint (auth context) but omits critical behavioral details like pagination mechanics (despite limit/cursor parameters), return value structure, or rate limiting.

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?

Brief three-sentence structure is efficient, but leads with bracketed tags ([UNIFIED] [Enterprise]) that add noise without clarifying function. The false claim about optional parameters wastes the agent's potential invocation attempt.

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 zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain parameters and behavior. It provides only licensing context, leaving critical gaps in parameter meanings, pagination behavior, and return structure.

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 has 0% description coverage, requiring description compensation. Instead, description contradicts schema by claiming all parameters are optional when 'site' is required. No explanation provided for 'site' (instance URL? name?), 'limit', or 'cursor' semantics.

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?

States 'List all projects' with clear verb and resource, and prefixes [UNIFIED] [Enterprise] to indicate scope. However, fails to distinguish from sibling `list_projects` (generic) or `n8n_get_project` (single item retrieval), leaving selection ambiguous.

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?

Specifies license requirement ('Requires n8n Enterprise/Pro license'), but provides no guidance on when to use versus `list_projects` or pagination workflow. Contains misleading guidance claiming 'All parameters are OPTIONAL' when the schema explicitly requires the 'site' parameter.

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