n8n_list_workflows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return values (workflow ID, name, active status, tags, metadata) which helps understand the output structure. However, it omits pagination behavior details despite having cursor/limit parameters, and does not mention rate limits or safety characteristics.

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 three sentences with no major waste. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is slightly extraneous metadata but harmless. Information is front-loaded with the purpose statement, followed by return values and parameter optionality.

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 partially compensates by documenting the return structure. However, it lacks individual parameter documentation and pagination guidance (how cursor/limit interact), which are necessary gaps to fill given the absence of structured metadata.

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%, requiring the description to compensate significantly. While it mentions 'optional filters' generally, it fails to explain what the 6 parameters (site, active, tags, name, limit, cursor) actually do or their relationships to the filtering capability. It mentions return fields but not input parameters.

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 states 'List all n8n workflows with optional filters' which provides a specific verb (List), resource (n8n workflows), and scope. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like n8n_get_workflow (single retrieval), n8n_create_workflow, and n8n_delete_workflow through the 'List' verb and plural 'workflows'.

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 'All filter parameters are OPTIONAL' which provides basic usage guidance (can be called without filters). However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance compared to siblings like n8n_get_workflow or n8n_search_workflows, and does not specify when filtering is preferred over retrieving all workflows.

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