Get insights summary

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, and the description adds valuable context: requires 'insights-read permission', 'never fabricates unavailable metrics', and enumerates the return aggregates (totals, failures, rates, time saved, runtime). It also notes the inclusive offset-aware bounds, which goes beyond the schema.

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 yet information-dense, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral/permission details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant filler.

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 availability of an output schema (which covers return structure) and comprehensive annotations, the description completes the picture with usage alternatives, parameter nuances, permissions, and reliability guarantees. The tool is simple (2 optional params), and this description fully covers the necessary context.

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?

While the schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), the description enriches semantics by explaining inclusiveness, the ordering constraint (startDate <= endDate), and the default behavior when both are omitted. This adds meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool 'Get n8n's official instance insights aggregates', specifying both the action (get) and the resource (instance insights aggregates). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool n8n_introspect by clarifying it's for instance-level aggregates vs. single workflow diagnostics.

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: 'Use it when the Community endpoint exists' and 'use n8n_introspect for one workflow's diagnostics'. It also explains parameter usage conditions (inclusive bounds, startDate <= endDate, default range when omitted), giving clear context for when to invoke.

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