n8n_list_workflows

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation that might return many results. The description adds value by specifying the return fields (workflow ID, name, active status, creation date, tags) and the browsing/finding use case, which gives context beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention rate limits or pagination, but with annotations covering safety, this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return details, followed by usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (list operation with filtering), annotations cover safety and scope, and the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds return field details and usage context, which is helpful since there's no output schema. However, it could mention potential limitations like result size or pagination, but for a read-only list tool, this is mostly complete.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (active and tags). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how filtering interacts with the return fields. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'all workflows' with specific details about what information is returned (status, tags, metadata, ID, name, active status, creation date). It distinguishes from siblings like n8n_get_workflow (singular) and n8n_list_executions by focusing on workflows with their metadata rather than individual workflows or 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 provides clear context for usage ('browse available automations or find a specific workflow by name'), which helps an agent understand when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings, such as n8n_get_workflow for detailed info on a single workflow.

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