acedatacloud_get_credential

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that token/password values are masked, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other potential behaviors such as error handling, typical return format details (though output schema exists), or any side effects (e.g., audit logging). The masking note adds value beyond the schema, but more could be said.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the essential verb and resource, and adds the critical masking caveat. Every word earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the core purpose and key security nuance, but lacks any mention of related tools, payment context, or typical use cases, which would help an agent make informed decisions. The output schema addresses return structure, so that omission is not penalized heavily.

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% and the only parameter 'credential_id' has a description ('Credential UUID') in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond confirming the resource type, but since the schema already fully documents the parameter, a baseline 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 action (get) and the resource (credential) with a specific modifier (one credential) and emphasizes the key behavior of masking sensitive values, distinguishing it from list and other credential management tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_credentials or update_credential, nor any mention of prerequisites or scenarios where masking matters. The context is inferred solely from the name and sibling list, but no explicit usage direction is provided.

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