n8n_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 for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only list operation, but does not mention potential side effects, pagination behavior, required permissions, or what happens when no workflows exist. The lack of detail on response structure or error conditions is a gap.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without any extraneous information. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

While the tool is simple and the schema is well-covered, the absence of an output schema and any behavioral details (e.g., pagination, response format) leaves the agent with only the one-line description. For a straightforward list operation, this is minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent to anticipate return values or edge cases.

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 input schema already documents both parameters (api_key and base_url). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as how the base_url affects the request or defaults, but this is acceptable given the high schema coverage, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 'Lista todos los workflows de n8n' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (workflows), clearly indicating the operation's scope. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like n8n_get_workflow (singular) and n8n_list_executions (executions, not workflows).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like n8n_get_workflow or n8n_list_executions. The context implies listing all workflows, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer.

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