get_self_api_key

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

Consistent with readOnlyHint=true and adds behavioral facts the annotation cannot express: the key hash and full secret are never returned, and the failure mode for session-based auth is spelled out with the exact error code. It also discloses the account/setup prerequisite.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then safety scoping, then access requirements. No filler; every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned fields and the excluded secret material, plus the auth prerequisite and error behavior. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and what to expect.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description instead usefully characterizes the response payload, though that belongs more to return-value than parameter semantics.

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 precise verb+resource ('Get the calling API key's own redacted metadata') and enumerates the exact returned fields (id, name, key_prefix, environment, scopes, last_used_at, revoked_at, created_at). The 'own' scoping clearly separates it from the sibling list_api_keys, which returns keys broadly.

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 ('agent self-inspection'), states the required auth mode, and gives the negative condition: a JWT session returns 400 api_key_required. It even preempts the most likely wrong move by noting start_login does NOT open this tool, and points to PROOF_API_KEY setup.

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