n8n_workflow_health

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

With readOnlyHint already declaring the operation safe, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the report is computed from recent executions, is per workflow, and is sorted worst-first. It also lists the exact metrics returned. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no wasted words: the first states what the tool produces and the second gives the use case. The core information is front-loaded.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description responsibly enumerates the returned metrics and the ordering. Minor ambiguity remains about how 'worst-first' is exactly ranked (by success rate, failure count, or combined score), but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the input schema (limit default/maximum, workflowId scoping), so the description doesn't need to compensate. The description's mention of 'per workflow' and 'recent executions' loosely reinforces parameter meaning but adds no new parameter-level detail.

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 names a specific deliverable: an operational health report with concrete metrics (success rate, failure count, average duration, last failure) per workflow, sorted worst-first. This clearly distinguishes it from raw execution tools and workflow listing tools by focusing on computed health aggregation.

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 explicitly states its intended use: 'Use it to find which workflows need attention.' It does not name sibling alternatives or list when-not conditions, but the use-case framing is strong enough to guide selection.

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