get-credential-schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (shows schema fields) but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. The description is functional but misses key operational context needed for an AI agent.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage context and examples. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys key information, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing parameters.

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 (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and gives parameter examples, but lacks details on behavior, return values, and full parameter semantics. This makes it adequate but not fully comprehensive for an AI agent to use effectively without additional context.

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 undocumented parameters. It explains 'credentialTypeName' with examples (e.g., 'cloudflareApi'), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't address 'clientId' at all, leaving one of two parameters unexplained. This partial coverage results in a baseline score of 3, as it adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 tool's purpose: 'Show credential data schema for a specific credential type.' It specifies the verb ('show') and resource ('credential data schema'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create-credential' by focusing on schema retrieval rather than creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get-' tools like 'get-execution' or 'get-workflow' beyond the credential focus.

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 implies usage context by stating 'The credential type name can be found in the n8n UI when creating credentials,' which suggests when to use this tool (to understand credential requirements before creation). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'create-credential' or other 'get-' tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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