List Executions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the default limit of 100, the n8n cap of 250, and the possibility of truncated results, which are important behavioral traits beyond a simple 'list' statement. It does not mention ordering or pagination details, but the output schema covers return shape.

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 compact and efficient, with the main purpose front-loaded and the limit/cap guidance placed in a natural follow-up. Every sentence adds useful information without 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?

For a list tool with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: what is listed, how to filter, and the default/cap behavior. It does not address alternative tool selection explicitly, but the main gaps are minor and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it interprets the status parameter by listing valid values (success, error, running, waiting), explains the limit parameter's default and cap, and clarifies workflow_id as a filter. The workflow_id description could be more detailed on format, but all three parameters receive some meaningful semantic guidance.

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 states the exact operation ('List workflow executions') and names the resource explicitly. It also specifies the available filters (workflow ID or status) and lists the valid status values, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_execution or list_workflows.

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 clear context on when to use this tool and how to configure it, including optional filters and limit behavior. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as get_execution, but the 'List' scope is clear enough that an agent will understand this is for multiple executions rather than a single one.

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