Retrieve an API key

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ownership authorization constraint, which is genuine value beyond annotations, but says nothing about return format or error behavior when ownership fails.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the ownership condition placed before the endpoint metadata. The opening line duplicates the tool title verbatim, which is minor redundancy, but nothing else is wasted.

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 single-parameter read with a complete schema and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate: it states the lookup key, the ownership requirement, and the underlying endpoint. Only the response shape and failure mode are unspecified, which is acceptable given the absence of an output schema.

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% with a single required 'id' (uuid), so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description only restates that lookup is by ID and adds the ownership condition; it contributes no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Retrieve an API key by its ID'), and the singular/ID-based phrasing implicitly separates it from the list sibling immich_get_api_keys. It does not explicitly name or contrast against sibling tools like get_my_api_key, so it stops short of a 5.

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 supplies a real precondition — 'The current user must own this API key' — which tells the agent when the call will succeed. However it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (get_api_keys for listing, get_my_api_key for the caller's own key), leaving routing to inference.

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