List workflows

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints in annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: the result is a single page, pagination is manual, it requires the workflow-list permission, and output is projected to exclude pin/static values. This adds valuable operational context without contradicting 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?

Three tightly packed sentences deliver purpose, alternatives, pagination rules, permissions, and return-value expectations. The content is front-loaded with the core action and every sentence provides distinct value with no redundancy.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to repeat return formatting. It covers pagination, filter semantics, permission requirements, and output projection, which fully addresses the tool's complexity and its relationship to sibling tools.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances this by explaining cross-parameter behavior: filters are combined upstream and must remain unchanged when passing nextCursor, and limit only sizes the current page. This adds meaning beyond individual parameter schemas, though not every parameter is addressed in the free text.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List one Public API page of workflows visible to the configured API key.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming n8n_search_workflows for substring matching and n8n_workflows_get for a known ID, leaving no ambiguity about its scope.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and practical: it tells when to use alternatives, how to handle the cursor ('Omit cursor for page one'), that filters must be preserved when passing nextCursor, and that the tool never auto-paginates. This provides clear context for selection and correct invocation.

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