List n8n Executions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds useful behavioral details: includeData increases response size, default output format is markdown, and pagination via cursor. It does not discuss rate limits or data retention, but the annotations plus these details provide solid transparency.

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 appropriately sized: a concise opening line followed by a well-organized Args list. Every element earns its place, with no redundancy. The front-loaded purpose statement and clean parameter formatting make it easy to scan.

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 has no output schema, the description does not detail return values, but this is acceptable for a list operation. It explains filtering, pagination, and output format. However, it could mention that response includes metadata like total count or nextCursor, but this is a minor gap. Overall, the description is complete for a listing tool with good annotations.

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 67%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that includeData 'increases response size', specifying default limit of 20 and max 250, and noting response_format defaults to markdown. This adds practical value, though cursor and workflowId are already well-defined in the schema.

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 'List workflow executions with optional filtering' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like n8n_get_execution (single execution) and n8n_list_workflows (workflows, not 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 on filtering options and pagination, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like n8n_get_execution. Sibling tool names and the 'list' verb imply typical usage, but no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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