n8n_check_disabled_nodes

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

The description is highly transparent without annotations. It declares read-only, bounded concurrency fan-out, and that per-workflow errors go to 'fetchErrors' instead of failing the scan. This fully discloses behavior.

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 well-structured and informative, though slightly longer. Each sentence adds value, and the main action is front-loaded. Could be tightened slightly but remains effective.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly defines the output structure (one finding per triplet plus count) and error handling. It covers all essential aspects for a scanning 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions in the schema are already detailed (e.g., maxWorkflows explains counting logic). The description adds no additional parameter-specific value beyond tool context, so baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool scans workflows and surfaces nodes with 'disabled: true'. It specifies output format (per workflowId, nodeName, nodeType plus count) and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on disabled nodes, which the UI doesn't surface.

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 explains why disabled nodes are important (drift signals) and that the UI doesn't list them, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools. However, the context and sibling list imply differentiation.

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