Check n8n health

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses specific behaviors: one redirect-free request, 10-second timeout, no arguments, auth requirements, environment variable for insecure HTTP, no workflow data read/changed, and that only ok=true and status are returned, never the body. This adds substantial value over 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 concise but thorough, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: behavior, prerequisites, usage guidance, side-effect safety, and return value. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: request behavior, prerequisites, usage separation, and return specifics. There is no missing information for a health-check tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete. The description explicitly states 'accepts no arguments', which adds clarity and reinforces the schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and this is met.

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 performs a redirect-free same-origin /healthz request with a 10-second timeout, which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly directing to n8n_workflows_list for API-key capability testing.

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 context: use for HTTP reachability, then use n8n_workflows_list for API-key capability. It also notes prerequisites (configured URL, API key, N8N_ALLOW_INSECURE_HTTP for plaintext) and states what is not read or changed.

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