Get a specific credential

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

The annotations already indicate this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting that the response 'include[s] secrets,' which is important for an agent to understand the sensitivity of the returned data. No contradictions with annotations.

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 short and the key detail ('including secrets') is front-loaded near the end of a two-sentence structure. There is minor redundancy between the title, first sentence, and second sentence, but the overall size is appropriate and free of irrelevant content.

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 simple single-parameter read-only operation with a clear ID schema, the description covers the essential behavior: retrieving one credential and its secrets. The absence of an output schema and the presence of safety-related annotations reduce the need for additional detail, though it could still have mentioned error or not-found behavior for full completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the sole parameter. It clarifies that the `id` parameter refers to the specific credential being retrieved, which is mildly helpful but largely restates the obvious. The parameter is simple enough that no further depth is critical, but the description does not go beyond the schema-provided meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieves'), a specific resource ('a specific credential'), and the retrieval mechanism ('by its ID'). The phrase 'including secrets' adds an important distinguishing detail and clearly separates this from list-oriented siblings like termix_credentials_get_all_credentials or termix_credentials_get_hosts_using_credential.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: 'Retrieves a specific credential by its ID' suggests this is for fetching one credential when the ID is known, as opposed to listing all credentials. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the meaning is reasonably inferable.

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