Get n8n Credential Schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds the purpose of determining required fields for credential creation, which is useful context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits or edge cases. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences plus an argument list. The main action is front-loaded, and the argument listing is minimal and clear. No unnecessary details.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns (schema/field definitions). The annotations cover safety, making the description complete.

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 description repeats the parameter and adds another example ('telegramApi'). It doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's own description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given that the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 function: 'Get the schema/field definitions for a credential type.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('schema/field definitions for a credential type'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like n8n_get_credential which operate on specific credential instances.

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 direct usage context: 'Use this to know which fields are required when creating credentials.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but for a schema lookup tool the context is clear enough.

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