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 pagination support and returned fields, but lacks details like default limit, authentication needs, or what happens with empty results. It is minimally transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, and key features (returned fields, pagination) are mentioned efficiently.

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 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, output summary, and pagination. It misses details like default limit (100) and excludePinnedData default, but these are in the schema, so overall complete enough.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; 'cursor pagination' is already documented in the cursor parameter. No additional clarification or context for parameters.

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 it lists all workflows on the n8n instance, specifying the resource (workflows) and action (list). It distinguishes from siblings like get_workflow (single) and update/deactivate, and mentions returned fields.

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 implies use for listing all workflows but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others like list_executions. No mention of when not to use or alternatives, leaving it to 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.