n8n_search_executions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches data with includeData=true, greps specific fields, redacts API keys, and warns that credentials may appear in snippets with scope='all'. It also notes that scope='all' is slower. This covers key behavioral traits, though it doesn't mention rate limits or performance impact beyond slowness.

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) with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently covers scope, return format, and security notes. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned: matched executions with workflow context and snippets, including redaction and sensitivity. However, it could benefit from a brief note on the structure of matched data (e.g., keys returned) or pagination behavior. Still, it's sufficient for the task.

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?

All 7 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond schema by explaining the overall flow, scope behavior, snippet content, and sensitivity implications. This enrichment justifies a 4.

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 explicitly states it performs text-search across executions, distinguishing it from simple listing tools like n8n_list_executions. It uses specific verbs ('Text-search', 'Fetches', 'greps') and resources ('n8n executions'), with clear scope differentiation ('error' vs 'all'). This separates it from siblings that list or fetch single executions.

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 when to use this tool (to search recent executions without paging) and provides context on scope choices and sensitivity. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like list_executions, it gives enough practical guidance for an agent to decide.

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