Retrieve the current API key

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small amount of context ('used to access this endpoint'), but says nothing about whether the secret is returned in plaintext, masking, or what the response contains. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 first line simply repeats the title verbatim, and the second sentence rephrases the same idea with only a small addition of scope. The trailing 'Immich operation: GET /api-keys/me' line is useful provenance but the content is somewhat redundant overall.

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 read-only tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is that no output schema exists, so the description could have indicated what is returned (the key value itself), but this is a minor omission.

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 for the description to clarify. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve the current API key') and adds a scoping phrase ('the API key that is used to access this endpoint'), which implies the 'me'/self scope. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the close siblings immich_get_api_key and immich_get_api_keys, so an agent must infer the difference from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools (get_api_key, get_api_keys, create_api_key, rotate_api_key) that an agent must choose between. The description only says what the call does, not when to prefer it.

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