get_api_key

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's real contribution is the non-obvious constraint that the key secret is never returned and that only metadata fields are visible. That is exactly the kind of context an agent needs and cannot get from annotations or schema.

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 sentences, zero filler; the identifying constraint (no secret exposure) is placed immediately after the verb, and the usage guidance follows. Nothing needs to be reordered or trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description only needs to add the non-structured facts, which it does (secret withheld, which metadata is inspectable). Minor gap: no mention of behavior when the UUID is unknown or belongs to another workspace.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it fully as a UUID with a pattern and the description 'The UUID of the API key to retrieve.' The description's 'by UUID' reinforces but adds no new syntax or lookup semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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 specific verb and resource ('Fetch one API key') plus the lookup key ('by UUID'), which immediately separates it from list_api_keys and the virtual-key siblings. The 'without revealing the secret' clause further pins down what this retrieval returns.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case: inspect scopes, defaults, limits, expiration, and reset state 'before changing access,' which implies it precedes update_api_key/rotate_api_key. It stops short of naming the alternative reads (list_api_keys, get_secret_reference) that an agent might confuse it with.

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