n8n_evaluations

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 detailing the three actions, pagination behavior ('cases can be large', default limits differ), and the unsupported trigger feature. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise yet comprehensive: first sentence states purpose, then requirements, then actions with brief notes, and ends with a limitation. Every sentence adds value with no 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 6 parameters, 3 actions, pagination, and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: usage scenarios, version requirements, authentication scopes, action-specific parameter requirements, pagination behavior, and known limitations. An agent can correctly invoke the tool based solely on this description.

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 extra context: default page sizes (100 for list_runs, 20 for list_cases), that runId is required for get_run/list_cases, and pagination via cursor. It elaborates on the enum values and the purpose of each action beyond the schema descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Read evaluation test runs for a workflow (read-only).' It specifies the resource (evaluation test runs) and action (read), distinguishing it from siblings that handle templates, health checks, or deployment.

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 usage context: version requirement (n8n >= 2.30), required API key scopes (testRun), lists three available actions with brief explanations, and notes a limitation (triggering runs not yet supported). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but the context is clear.

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