n8n_get_credential_schema

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with by describing a read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the tool's role in understanding authentication data and the output format (field names, types, required status), which is not covered by annotations. No contradictions are present.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, usage, and output. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) and annotations covering safety (readOnly, non-destructive), the description is mostly complete. It explains the output format and usage context, but lacks an output schema, which might leave some uncertainty about the return structure. However, it compensates well for the absence of an output schema by describing the return content.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'credentialType' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add specific details about the parameter beyond implying it's used to identify the credential type, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value.

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 with specific verbs ('Get required fields and format') and resource ('credential type'), distinguishing it from siblings like n8n_create_credential by focusing on schema retrieval rather than creation. It explicitly mentions the output ('Returns field names, types, and whether fields are required') and the context ('before creating it'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for usage ('before creating it') and implies an alternative (n8n_create_credential) by referencing credential creation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to other sibling tools like n8n_get_credential (which is not listed), leaving some guidance gaps.

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