n8n_audit_instance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying that it combines built-in audit APIs with deep workflow scanning for secrets, webhooks, etc., and returns an actionable markdown report. It does not mention performance implications or rate limits, but the annotations plus description provide strong 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 three sentences long, each adding essential information: what the tool does, how it works, and what it returns. No fluff or 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return format (markdown report with remediation steps). It covers all aspects: purpose, parameters, behavior, and linkage to other tools. Highly complete for a read-only 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by listing the custom checks (hardcoded_secrets, etc.) beyond the schema's enum values, and explains the overall workflow scanning scope, enhancing understanding of the 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 clearly specifies the tool's purpose: security audit of an n8n instance. It details what the audit covers (built-in API categories and deep workflow scanning) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like n8n_manage_credentials and n8n_workflow management tools.

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 indicates when to use this tool (for security auditing) and suggests remediation via n8n_manage_credentials and n8n_update_partial_workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternative validation tools, but given its uniqueness among siblings, this is sufficient.

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