get_self_api_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility, and it delivers: it discloses that the response is redacted, that the key hash and full secret are never returned, the exact auth requirement, the error condition for JWT auth, and the prerequisite Proof account setup. This goes well beyond a minimal 'gets metadata' statement.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and returned fields, then adds necessary edge-case and setup details. Every sentence carries useful information: what is returned, what is never returned, auth requirements, and access prerequisites. No filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema introspection tool, the description is complete. It explains what the agent gets, what it cannot get, how to authenticate, what error to expect when misused, and what environment setup is required. There is no significant missing information for correctly selecting and invoking this tool.

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 is empty and has 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds context about the implicit auth context (the calling API key), which is the relevant 'parameter' here. A score of 4 reflects that the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is strong and the description supports it well.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clearly scoped resource: the calling API key's own redacted metadata. It even enumerates the returned fields and states it is for agent self-inspection, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like list_api_keys or get_api_key_usage.

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 gives explicit conditions for use: API-key auth is required, and a JWT session will fail with 400 api_key_required. It also provides concrete setup steps (set PROOF_API_KEY, restart server) and warns that start_login does not enable this tool, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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