n8n_list_workflows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It says 'list all workflows' but the input schema has a default limit of 100, meaning not all workflows may be returned. This is potentially misleading. No disclosure of authentication, rate limits, or side effects.

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?

A single sentence that is direct and informative, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action (list workflows) and then lists the return fields. No fluff.

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 return values, which is good since there is no output schema. However, it omits important context: the limit parameter's impact on 'all workflows', how the server_name parameter works, and any pagination behavior. For a list operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (limit and server_name), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameters; it only describes return values. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states 'List all workflows on an n8n server' and enumerates what is returned (names, IDs, active status, node counts). Distinct from sibling tools like n8n_get_workflow (single workflow) and n8n_create_workflow (creation).

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 purpose is clear, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not say 'Use this to get a list; use n8n_get_workflow to retrieve a specific workflow.' The usage context is implied by the name and siblings.

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