tools_documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds context about parameter effects (quick start vs specific docs, depth levels), which goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand behavior.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by usage guidance. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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?

The description covers purpose and usage but does not mention the output format (e.g., returns text/markdown). However, given the tool's simplicity and no required parameters, it is mostly complete. An explicit note about return type would raise it to 5.

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%, with both parameters documented. The description adds usage patterns: 'Call without parameters for quick start guide' and specific parameter uses, enriching the schema meaning with real-world invocation scenarios.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get documentation' for 'n8n MCP tools', clearly defining the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being a meta-documentation tool, not a node or workflow tool.

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 clear usage patterns: 'Call without parameters for quick start guide', 'Use topic parameter to get documentation for specific tools', and 'Use depth="full" for comprehensive documentation'. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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