n8n_evaluations

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description discloses version gating, API key scope requirements, the need for workflow:execute permission, and a performance warning for list_cases ('paginate - cases can be large'). It also explains what cancel does ('stop a running run'). No contradiction 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 three sentences, front-loaded with a clear summary and then requirements and an action list. Every sentence carries substantive information (prerequisites, action semantics, pagination warning) with no filler 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains key return concepts: 'aggregated metrics' for get_run, 'per-case results' for list_cases, and 'list runs for a workflow' for list_runs. It also covers prerequisites, action semantics, and pagination guidance. This is complete for a multi-action tool with six parameters.

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 value by explaining run requires an evaluation trigger, get_run returns aggregated metrics, and list_cases can be large and needs pagination, which enriches the meaning of the action parameter and relates to limit/cursor. It does not cover all parameters, but it goes beyond 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 opens with 'Run and read evaluation test runs for a workflow,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like n8n_executions and n8n_test_workflow by focusing on 'evaluation' test runs, and then enumerates the five actions.

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 explicit context for when the tool can be used, including version requirements (n8n >= 2.30 for reading, >= 2.32 for run/cancel) and permission requirements (API key scope, workflow:execute). It does not name alternative tools for exclusion, but the 'evaluation' qualifier and action list make the intended use clear.

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