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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, idempotency, or behavior when the workflow is already active, leaving significant behavioral context unknown.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and effectively communicates the core purpose, earning its place without redundancy.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits critical context such as base_url semantics, expected response, and usage prerequisites, making it incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the 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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. While id and api_key have schema descriptions, base_url is undocumented, and the tool description does not clarify its optionality or purpose. The description adds no value for understanding 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 'Activa un workflow por su ID' uses a specific verb (activates) with a clear resource (workflow by ID), distinguishing it from siblings like n8n_deactivate_workflow. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like n8n_deactivate_workflow or n8n_create_workflow. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or scenario descriptions, offering no usage direction to the agent.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'creates' without detailing side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or error conditions. The tool mutates state, but the description does not warn about potential conflicts or the need for a valid workflow object.

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 one short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified for a tool with nested objects and no annotations, so it is not appropriately sized. It earns its place but leaves too much unsaid.

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 the nested workflow object, three parameters, and no output schema or annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain what the returned data looks like, how the workflow object should be structured (beyond a one-line schema note), or any behavioral context needed to use the tool effectively.

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?

The description adds no parameter meaning. The schema already describes api_key and workflow, but base_url lacks a description, and the description does not clarify it or any parameter relationships. With 67% schema coverage, the description does nothing to compensate for the gap.

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 a specific action ('creates a new workflow') and resource ('n8n'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list, get, activate, and deactivate workflows. It is a direct and unambiguous purpose statement.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention checking existing workflows first, prerequisites, or cases where another tool (e.g., get_workflow or list_workflows) would be more appropriate. The implicit 'create' action is the only hint.

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

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 only states the core action without disclosing side effects, reversibility, or required API key/authorization details. For a mutation-like operation, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single, concise sentence in Spanish that is directly front-loaded with the primary action. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and only a minimal description. For a simple deactivation action, it lacks information about expected outcomes, response format, or constraints (e.g., whether the workflow must exist or be active). This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 67% (id and api_key have descriptions, base_url does not). The description mentions 'por su ID' which aligns with the id parameter but adds little beyond the schema's existing description. It does not clarify the role of api_key or base_url.

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 action (deactivate) and the resource type (workflow) with its scope (by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like n8n_activate_workflow and n8n_get_workflow.

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 implies usage (to deactivate a specific workflow) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The context is clear from the name and siblings, but no direct comparison or exclusion is mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'obtiene' (gets) implies a read-only operation, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention authentication requirements (beyond the api_key parameter), error behavior if the execution is not found, or response format. These are gaps, but the read-only implication is conveyed.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler content. It front-loads the action and provides the essential scope ('by its ID'). Every word earns its place, and there is zero waste.

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?

This is a simple get-by-ID tool with no output schema. The description states what it does but gives no indication of the returned data structure, error handling, or the need for a base_url parameter. While the tool is simple, the lack of output schema and undocumented base_url create ambiguity for an agent invoking it. The description is adequate but not rich.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for 'id' and 'api_key' (67% coverage), but 'base_url' is undocumented. The tool description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema already states. It does not clarify the purpose of 'base_url' or any expected formats, so the description does not compensate for the missing schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('obtiene' = gets) and identifies the exact resource ('el detalle de una ejecución' = execution detail) with the required key ('por su ID' = by its ID). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like n8n_list_executions (which lists executions) and n8n_get_workflow (which gets a workflow).

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 phrase 'por su ID' clearly indicates this tool is used when you have a specific execution ID and need its detail. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., use n8n_list_executions to find IDs), but the context is clear and no exclusions are stated. This is sufficient for a simple get-by-ID tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions only that it gets details, providing no information about returns, side effects, error behavior, or required authentication beyond what the schema implies. This is thin for a tool in a complex ecosystem.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence. It communicates the essential purpose without waste, which is appropriate for this tool's simplicity.

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 description is too sparse given the absence of an output schema and the presence of many sibling tools. It does not explain what 'detail' includes, list prerequisites, or clarify selection among similar tools. A simple read tool could benefit from mentioning return contents or when to choose it over list_workflows.

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?

The schema already covers 67% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds the context that the workflow is fetched by ID, which aligns with the 'id' parameter, but adds no additional meaning for api_key or base_url. Since schema coverage is high, baseline is 3.

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 it retrieves (obtiene) the detail of a workflow by its ID, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like n8n_list_workflows (which lists all) and n8n_create_workflow (which creates).

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 implies usage when a specific workflow ID is known, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. For a simple get-by-ID tool, this is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the exact command and that the installation is global, implying a system-wide change, but it does not mention potential side effects like requiring sudo, network access, or whether it can be safely rerun.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core action (installs n8n) and the method (npm install -g n8n). No unnecessary words or filler—excellent conciseness.

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?

For a simple, zero-parameter install tool, the description covers the essential action and provides the underlying command. It could mention prerequisites like network access or sudo, but given the tool's simplicity and the empty schema, the description is reasonably complete.

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 zero parameters, the schema is empty and the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description provides the actual command executed, which adds semantic context beyond the empty schema by detailing the installation method.

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's function: installing n8n globally on the machine using a specific npm command. The verb 'Instala' is specific and the resource is unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools like n8n_start or n8n_stop.

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 implies usage context: it is for installation, not for starting/stopping or managing workflows. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, relying on the user's understanding of sibling tool names.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It does not disclose authentication requirements (beyond the api_key parameter), pagination behavior, the meaning of 'recent', or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely makes external API calls.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It is efficiently written but somewhat under-specified, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide richer context. It fails to mention return format, filtering options, default limits, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 75%, with limit, api_key, and workflow_id described, but base_url lacks a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for the missing base_url 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?

The description 'Lista las ejecuciones recientes de n8n' clearly states the tool lists recent n8n executions, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like n8n_get_execution by implying multiple results, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as n8n_get_execution or n8n_list_workflows. It only states what it does without context for selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only list operation, but does not mention potential side effects, pagination behavior, required permissions, or what happens when no workflows exist. The lack of detail on response structure or error conditions is a gap.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without any extraneous information. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

While the tool is simple and the schema is well-covered, the absence of an output schema and any behavioral details (e.g., pagination, response format) leaves the agent with only the one-line description. For a straightforward list operation, this is minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent to anticipate return values or edge cases.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters (api_key and base_url). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as how the base_url affects the request or defaults, but this is acceptable given the high schema coverage, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 'Lista todos los workflows de n8n' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (workflows), clearly indicating the operation's scope. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like n8n_get_workflow (singular) and n8n_list_executions (executions, not 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like n8n_get_workflow or n8n_list_executions. The context implies listing all workflows, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that n8n runs in the background and that the tool waits until the server responds at http://localhost:5678, providing useful behavioral context. However, it omits edge cases such as behavior if n8n is already running, potential side effects, or failure handling, limiting transparency.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Inicia n8n') and efficiently conveys the background execution and wait condition, making every word earn 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?

For a simple start operation, the description covers the core action and the waiting behavior, which is the key contextual detail. However, there is no output schema and the return value is not described, leaving minor gaps for an otherwise simple 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and the baseline for no parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is required since there are no parameters to document.

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 uses the specific verb 'Inicia' (start) and clearly identifies the resource as 'n8n', distinguishing it from sibling tools like n8n_install, n8n_stop, and n8n_status. It further clarifies the action by specifying 'en background' and the target URL, making the intent unambiguous.

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 implicitly indicates this tool is for starting n8n, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., after installation, when status shows stopped). No exclusions or references to sibling tools are provided, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

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 indicates this is a read-only check ('Verifica') but does not specify return values, error handling, or whether it might hang. This is a minimal but acceptable disclosure for a status check.

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 a single concise sentence that communicates the purpose without redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 the simplicity of a no-parameter status check, the description covers the essential function. However, it lacks details about output or failure modes, so it is not fully complete.

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?

There are no parameters, as shown by the empty input schema. With zero parameters, the description naturally doesn't need to explain parameter behavior, and the baseline is 4.

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 uses the specific verb 'Verifica' and clearly identifies the resource (n8n) and the check being performed (running and accessible at a specific URL). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like install, start, and stop, which perform different actions.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as n8n_start or n8n_stop. However, the function of checking status is implicit from the name and description, providing some implied guidance. There is no mention of conditions or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action (stopping the n8n process) and scopes it to the process started by n8n_start, but it does not disclose details such as whether the stop is graceful, what happens if the process is not running, or any side effects. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, and it communicates the purpose and scope efficiently. It is model conciseness.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains what it does and when to use it. The only minor gap is lack of information about edge cases (e.g., already stopped), but this is not critical for a stop tool. Overall, it is adequate for the task.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context by specifying the exact process scope ('iniciado por n8n_start'), which is useful even though there are no parameters to document. No extra parameter explanation is needed.

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 action ('Detiene' = stops) and the resource ('el proceso de n8n'), and specifically distinguishes itself from the sibling n8n_start by referencing the process it manages. This is a specific verb+resource pair that is not 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?

The phrase 'iniciado por n8n_start' provides clear usage context, indicating the tool should be used after n8n_start. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the pairing with n8n_start is a clear enough guideline for this simple tool.

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