n8n_get_instance_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only says the tool gets health information, implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what the response contains, whether any side effects occur, or authentication requirements. For a background read tool, this is minimal disclosure and leaves the agent guessing about the actual return payload and safety profile.

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 in Spanish that conveys the tool's purpose without redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the key information and avoids any filler, making it easy to scan.

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, the description should explain what information is returned (e.g., status, uptime, version, error rates). It only says 'health information' vaguely, leaving the agent uncertain about the exact response structure. Also, it does not clarify how this differs from n8n_self_test, which might also provide health diagnostics. The description is too sparse for complete understanding.

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 there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary detail. The tool simply takes no inputs, which is clear from the schema.

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 'Obtener información de salud de la instancia n8n' clearly states a specific verb ('obtener') and resource ('información de salud de la instancia'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like n8n_get_instance_version (which fetches version) and n8n_self_test (which might run tests), making its purpose distinct and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or contrast with sibling tools like n8n_self_test. There is no explicit usage context beyond the basic capability, so the agent receives no help in selecting this over others.

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