Generate security audit

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

The description claims 'non-destructive' and 'without changing configuration', which directly contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint: false and idempotentHint: false. This is a clear annotation contradiction, undermining the agent's understanding of the tool's side effects.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose, parameter behavior, prerequisites/alternative/effect. No fluff or redundancy; all content is high-signal.

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, parameter semantics, usage limits, prerequisites, alternative tool, and outcome ('returns a sanitized but untrusted report'). The output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration. However, the contradiction between the description and annotations creates significant ambiguity about the tool's actual side effects, preventing a perfect score.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing baseline adequacy. The description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema by clarifying that 'daysAbandonedWorkflow is independent... does not select categories' and that omitting categories invokes the complete default, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 'Run n8n's broad, non-destructive instance security scan', identifying the action and resource. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling n8n_introspect by noting 'Use n8n_introspect for one workflow', which differentiates scope and purpose.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Omit categories to use n8n's complete default, or supply the exact risk areas to include', explains when to use an alternative ('Use n8n_introspect for one workflow'), and states necessary prerequisites ('Requires unsafe mode and owner-authorized API access').

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