n8n_list_workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying the minimal metadata return format and pagination behavior (check hasMore/nextCursor). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful operational context beyond what annotations convey.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the primary action and follow with key details (fields, pagination). No unnecessary words or sentences, earning its place efficiently.

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 adequately explains return fields and pagination. However, it omits details like default sorting or order, which could be useful for a list operation. Overall, it is reasonably complete for its purpose but has minor gaps.

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 6 parameters are already described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as constraints or default behaviors. The mention of pagination in the description relates to the cursor parameter but does not enrich its meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List workflows' with a specific verb and resource, and adds 'minimal metadata only' to distinguish from more detailed tools. It lists the returned fields (id/name/active/dates/tags) and mentions pagination, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like n8n_get_workflow or n8n_executions. It implies usage for listing workflows but lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when minimal metadata is sufficient.

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