List credentials

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), the description discloses that the tool never auto-paginates, returns only metadata and nextCursor (never stored values), and requires a specific permission. These are meaningful operational behaviors not captured in the annotations, significantly enhancing transparency.

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 sentences, each covering a distinct aspect: purpose, pagination instructions, alternative tool, and permission/results. It is front-loaded with the primary action and every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers version compatibility, pagination behavior, permission requirements, and return value restrictions. It also names the alternative tool for specific cases. No obvious gaps remain for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds operational nuance: the cursor should be 'passed back unchanged' from nextCursor, and limit applies only to that request. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, adding real value for correct usage.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'List one Public API page of credential metadata.' This clearly identifies the resource (credentials metadata) and scope (single page). It also distinguishes from sibling n8n_credentials_get by stating 'Use n8n_credentials_get when an ID is known.'

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 directs the agent to n8n_credentials_get when an ID is known, provides pagination usage rules (omit cursor for first page, pass nextCursor back unchanged), and clarifies that limit applies per request only. It also mentions the required permission ('credential-list permission'), giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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