n8n_list_executions

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, which the description does not contradict. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the return format ('execution ID, status, start time, and workflow name') and the tool's purpose for monitoring and debugging, enhancing transparency without repeating annotation information.

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 front-loaded with key information in the first sentence and uses two concise sentences that efficiently convey purpose, parameters, returns, and usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it well-structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter), rich annotations (read-only, non-destructive, open-world), and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, filtering, returns, and usage, but could slightly improve by mentioning pagination or limits for the list operation, though annotations provide some safety context.

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 has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the optional 'workflowId' parameter. The description mentions filtering by workflow ID but does not add significant semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline score for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 action ('Retrieve execution history') and resource ('executions'), specifying what information is included ('status, timestamps, and workflow info'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'n8n_get_execution' (which retrieves a single execution) and 'n8n_delete_execution' (which deletes executions), making the purpose specific and well-differentiated.

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 clear context on when to use it ('to monitor automation performance or debug failures') and mentions filtering options ('Filter by workflow ID or get all executions'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, such as using 'n8n_get_execution' for detailed single execution data, which prevents a perfect score.

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