Lint n8n workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Check ... for reliability problems" implies a non-mutating analysis and it discloses the return content (severity summary plus findings), which helps. However, it does not confirm the operation is read-only, that it has no side effects on the workflow or server, or whether the workflow must already exist/be valid before linting.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by how to pass input and what comes back. No filler, though the input-format sentence overlaps with the schema description.

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 single-parameter, non-mutating analysis tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, this is nearly sufficient: it explains input form and return shape. The main omission is the relationship to the rule-exploration siblings and any statement of statelessness/side-effect profile.

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 coverage is 100% with a single well-documented parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's "Pass the workflow as an object or as a JSON string" largely restates the schema's own description and anyOf typing rather than adding new meaning (e.g., size limits or expected export shape). Baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: checking an n8n workflow export for reliability problems, and the title reinforces it. It is clearly distinct in function from list_rules and explain_rule, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from those siblings.

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 implies a use case (validating a workflow) but never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as the workflow needing to be a valid export. With sibling tools list_rules and explain_rule present, guidance about their relationship would have been valuable, and none is given.

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