list-workflows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the JSON formatting requirement ('Arguments must be provided as compact, single-line JSON'), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention other important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication needs - significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and usage context, while the second provides critical formatting instructions. Both sentences earn their place, though the structure could be slightly improved by separating formatting requirements into a distinct section.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It provides good usage context and formatting requirements but completely misses parameter semantics. For a tool with no annotations and undocumented parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to properly invoke the 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 input schema has 1 parameter (clientId) with 0% description coverage. The tool description provides NO information about what 'clientId' represents, its format, or where to obtain it. For a required parameter with no schema documentation, this is a substantial gap that the description fails to address.

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's purpose: 'List all workflows from n8n' - a specific verb ('List') and resource ('workflows from n8n'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-workflow' (singular) and 'list-executions' (different resource). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all list-type siblings (e.g., 'list-projects', 'list-tags'), which prevents a perfect score.

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 for when to use: 'Use after init-n8n to see available workflows' - this gives a prerequisite and timing guidance. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use or name alternatives (e.g., 'get-workflow' for single workflow), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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