list-workflows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the requirement for 'compact, single-line JSON' arguments, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, fields included). For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important usage and formatting notes. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does and when to use it, the second provides critical input formatting guidance. No wasted words.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, and input formatting but misses parameter details, output behavior, and operational constraints. For a simple list tool, it's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'Arguments must be provided as compact, single-line JSON' but doesn't explain the 'clientId' parameter's purpose, format, or where to obtain it. With one undocumented parameter, the description adds minimal value beyond the 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 verb 'List' and resource 'all workflows from n8n', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-workflow' (singular) by indicating it retrieves multiple workflows. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list-executions' or 'list-projects' beyond the resource name.

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?

The description provides clear context with 'Use after init-n8n to see available workflows', giving a prerequisite and timing guidance. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools include 'get-workflow' for single workflows, which is implied by the plural vs. singular naming.

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