list_workflows

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, what the return shape looks like, whether pagination or limits apply, or how filters affect the result. The verb 'List' implies reading, but little else is disclosed.

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 one short sentence with no redundant title repetition or filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 tool is a simple list operation with three optional parameters, and the schema covers those parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description could usefully mention return value or pagination behavior to be fully complete; it is minimally adequate but not rich.

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%, so the descriptions of tags, limit, and active already document the parameters. The main description adds no further meaning beyond the implicit notion that filters narrow the list, which keeps it at the baseline.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('workflows') with scope ('in n8n'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_workflow (single item) and list_executions (different resource), so an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over get_workflow, list_executions, or the other workflow operations. The description only states the action and provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria.

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