Check an n8n workflow file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so "reads the file only; writes nothing" is largely redundant. The description does earn its keep by disclosing the return shape (one line per problem tagged error/warning/info, or "No problems found"), which annotations cannot convey and which no output schema covers.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it checks, when to use it, what it returns, then a one-clause safety note. The defect list is front-loaded and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only validator with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, detected problem classes and return format. Combined with annotations that already handle the safety profile, nothing material is missing before an agent can call it correctly.

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% and both parameters already carry descriptions including the "give either path or json, not both" mutual exclusivity rule. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning or precedence, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (check an n8n workflow JSON file) and enumerates the exact defect classes it detects: broken connections, duplicate node names, disabled steps, REPLACE-ME placeholders, missing credentials. The scope is clearly limited to n8n, which separates it from the convert_make/convert_zapier siblings in the same family.

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?

"Use it after the user finished steps by hand, or on any n8n workflow" gives a concrete trigger condition and broadens it to a catch-all. It does not explicitly exclude or name alternatives (e.g., suggesting convert_zapier when the source is Zapier), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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