n8n_audit_browser_bridge_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses that the tool is read-only and uses a heuristic matching method. It explains the matching pattern and the output structure, providing sufficient behavioral context for safe agent usage.

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 a single focused paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and provides necessary details without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the scan scope, matching method, output structure, read-only nature, and parameter defaults. It is complete enough given the moderate complexity and absence of an output schema.

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 six parameters have schema descriptions, and the description adds value by including default values and rationale (e.g., 'inactive workflows often hide stale browser-bridge calls'). This goes beyond the bare schema.

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 every workflow for nodes invoking the browser-bridge CLI, and specifies the exact node types (Execute Command, Code/Function, SSH). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a specific use case: locating browser-bridge calls without grepping the database.

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 gives a concrete example of when to use the tool ('where am I calling Linktree sync from?'), implying usage context. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use it, so it's clear but lacks exclusions.

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