n8n_audit_instance

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

Annotations confirm read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the deep workflow scanning (50+ regex patterns), checks (unauthenticated webhooks, etc.), and output format (markdown report). No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and provides specific details without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and a complex tool, the description covers the audit scope, checks, and output type. It mentions remediation using sibling tools, which aids completeness. Could include more on output structure, but sufficient for an audit 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?

All 4 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description mentions 'all 5' and 'all 4' default checks, which is already in the schema. It does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline 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 'Security audit of n8n instance' and lists specific areas (credentials, database, nodes, instance, filesystem) and custom checks. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on auditing and remediation, not workflow management or creation.

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 mentions returning an actionable markdown report with remediation steps using sibling tools, implying when to use it (for security audit). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the read-only nature suggests safe usage anytime.

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