n8n: List workflows

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 context. It does add the returned fields (ID, name, active status, tags, metadata), which is useful, but it omits pagination behavior entirely despite exposing limit and cursor parameters.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The closing "All filter parameters are OPTIONAL" partially repeats "with optional filters," which is the only wasted space.

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?

The return-value summary compensates for the absent output schema, and optionality is covered. However, with six parameters at 0% schema coverage and an unexplained required 'site' argument, an agent still lacks what it needs to construct a correct call.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It signals that name/tags/active are optional filters, which adds some meaning, but the required 'site' parameter is never explained and the limit/cursor pairing is left 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List all n8n workflows") plus the scope of optional filters, which is enough to distinguish it from write siblings like n8n_create_workflow or n8n_activate_workflow. It does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus related list tools (n8n_list_executions, n8n_list_tags) or when to combine filters. The only usage statement is that filters are optional, which the schema already conveys via default null.

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