n8n_run_audit

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is read-only ('never mutates'), details the output structure (risk reports with sections), and notes authorization requirements. This is strong transparency, though it could mention potential side effects like performance impact or rate limits.

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 concise (4-5 sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: main action, category details, output structure, read-only nature, and auth requirement. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential output format and parameter behavior. It explains the report structure and the effect of includeDetails. However, it does not describe the default when categories is omitted or error conditions, leaving minor gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates category names but does not clarify values, defaults, or relationships between parameters. It is adequate but not additive.

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's action ('Generate n8n's built-in security audit via POST /audit'), specifies the resource, and describes the five risk categories. While it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings, the name and context make its purpose distinct among the listed tools (e.g., no other audit tool covers all these categories).

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. It mentions a prerequisite (admin/owner role) but does not specify when to choose this audit over other audit-related siblings like n8n_audit_browser_bridge_usage or n8n_check_disabled_nodes.

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