List n8n Workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details beyond this: pagination via cursor, limit range (1-250), configurable output format (markdown/json), and the specific return fields (id, name, active status, node count, dates). This context helps the agent understand what to expect.

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 concise and well-structured: a single-sentence summary, a formatted Args list, and a Returns line. There is no redundant fluff, and each line provides necessary information. The front-loaded summary makes the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explicitly lists the returned fields (id, name, active status, node count, dates). All 7 optional parameters are documented with types and constraints, and annotations cover safety. The description is complete for a read-only list tool, covering pagination, output format, and filtering options.

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%, meaning every parameter already has a description in the input schema. The description's Args section essentially replicates the schema's parameter descriptions verbatim (e.g., 'active' as 'Filter by active/inactive status', 'limit' as 'Max results per page (1-250, default 20)'). It adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 begins with 'List workflows from the n8n instance with optional filtering', clearly specifying the action (list) and resource (workflows). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like n8n_get_workflow (single retrieval) and mutation tools (create/update/delete). The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 usage: it is for listing workflows and supports optional filters (active, name, tags, projectId, pagination). It clearly indicates a list operation, which differentiates it from single-workflow retrieval (n8n_get_workflow). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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