n8n_self_test

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions testing connectivity and permissions, but does not explain what actions are performed, whether it makes any modifications, or what the response contains. This is minimal and lacks 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 short sentence that directly states the purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, with 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a basic purpose but lacks details on what the test entails, how results are presented, or any behavioral implications. It is adequate but leaves gaps in understanding what 'connectivity and permissions' actually covers.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage). According to the baseline, a score of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema details.

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 tests connectivity and permissions with n8n, using a specific verb ('Probar' = test) and a distinct resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform CRUD or execution operations, though it could be more specific about what exactly is tested.

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. It is implied as a self-test, but there is no explicit mention of scenarios, exclusions, or alternative tools for similar purposes.

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