openwisp_get_credential

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The embedded HTTP GET and endpoint path usefully signal a read-only, non-mutating operation, but nothing is said about auth requirements, whether the credential secret is exposed in the response, or error behavior when the ID is unknown.

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?

Two compact fragments with no filler; the action is front-loaded before the technical endpoint detail. Slightly terse but nothing wasted.

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 full schema coverage this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should say something about what a 'credential' returns (and whether secrets are included). Security-relevant return content is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented in the schema as a 'Credential UUID or ID'. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Get a connection credential') and even pins the HTTP verb and endpoint path. It's distinguishable from mutation siblings like openwisp_update_credential/openwisp_delete_credential, though it doesn't clarify its relationship to openwisp_list_credentials or why 'connection' credential is named differently.

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 retrieval by ID but never states when to use this versus openwisp_list_credentials or other get_* siblings. No prerequisites or context given.

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