Get credential

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

While annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it requires credential-read permission, returns only validated identity/type/flags/timestamps, and does not retrieve secret data or test the service. This goes beyond the annotations and fully informs the agent about side effects and limitations. No contradiction exists.

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 four concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds important constraints, permissions, return contents, and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is logically ordered.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, parameter source, permissions, return summary, exclusions, and a pointer to a sibling tool. It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool without further clarification.

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?

Although the schema already describes credentialId as a stable ID, the description enriches this significantly: it clarifies that the ID is from n8n_credentials_list or create, and crucially that it is not the name, type, or secret data. This disambiguation prevents misuse of the parameter and adds meaning well beyond the schema description.

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 starts with 'Get public metadata for one stored credential'—a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating it does not retrieve credential values or test the external service, and points to n8n_credentials_schema for type fields. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from list, schema, test, and update 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?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool: when you need public metadata for a single stored credential. It directs users to n8n_credentials_schema for type fields, explains that credentialId comes from n8n_credentials_list or create, and clarifies what the endpoint does not do (retrieve values or test). This gives clear guidance on selecting this tool over alternatives.

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