n8n_get_credential

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

No annotations are present, so the description must stand alone. It states the tool retrieves a specific credential but does not disclose any behavioral details such as error handling, required permissions, or whether the credential contains sensitive data. The description adds little beyond what the name implies.

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 a single, concise sentence in Spanish, front-loaded with the verb and clear. There is no extraneous 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 simple one-parameter get tool, the description covers the core purpose, but with no annotations or output schema, it lacks any mention of return format or error behavior. It's minimally complete but leaves some gaps.

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?

The schema already fully describes the only parameter (credential_id) with a description, and the tool description repeats the 'by id' concept. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal additional semantic value beyond 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 'Obtener una credencial concreta por id' clearly states the action (obtener/get), the resource (credential), and the criterion (by id). It distinguishes from list_credentials and other get tools by emphasizing 'concreta' (specific) and 'por id' (by ID).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like n8n_list_credentials. The usage is implied by the name and description – if you need a specific credential by ID – but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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