list_workflows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a listing operation with filtering capabilities and mentions output verbosity levels, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states purpose and output, the second provides usage guidance and filtering capabilities. Every element earns its place with no redundant information.

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 listing tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context. However, it lacks details about return format, pagination behavior, or error scenarios that would be helpful given the filtering complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions filtering capabilities ('Results can be filtered by active status, tags, or name') which aligns with the schema but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('all workflows from n8n') with specific output details ('basic information including ID, name, status, creation date, and tags'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_workflow' (specific workflow) and 'list_executions' (different resource).

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 explicit context for when to use this tool ('to get an overview of available workflows before performing operations on specific workflows'), which helps differentiate from siblings like 'get_workflow'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives for filtering scenarios.

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