List all API keys

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 only the auth scope (current user's keys); it says nothing about return shape or pagination, which is a modest but real gap for a list endpoint.

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 operation and scope in the opening lines. The first line duplicates the title verbatim and the second sentence restates the same idea, a minor redundancy rather than bloat.

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 list tool the description covers the essentials, but without an output schema it could reasonably indicate what the returned API keys contain (ids, names, timestamps) or whether results are paginated. Adequate but with a clear remaining gap.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly signals a parameterless, unscoped list call, and there is no additional parameter semantics to convey.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ("List all API keys" / "Retrieve all API keys") and states the scope as "of the current user." It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the singular sibling immich_get_api_key or from immich_get_my_api_key, so the differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase "of the current user," which tells the agent this returns the caller's own keys rather than an arbitrary user's. However, no when/when-not conditions or alternatives (e.g., immich_get_my_api_key, immich_get_api_key) are named, so routing is not made explicit.

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