immich-photo-manager

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it returns specific data (base URL and masked API key), explains the masking rationale (thumbnails use base64 data URIs, so plaintext key isn't needed in HTML), and implies it's a read-only, non-destructive operation. It doesn't cover potential errors or rate limits, but provides sufficient context for safe use.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second specifies the usage context, and the third explains the masking behavior. Every sentence adds essential value with zero waste, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with key 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and key behavioral details (masked API key rationale). With an output schema handling return values, no additional explanation of outputs is needed, making this fully adequate for the context.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output without redundant parameter info, earning a high baseline score for this context.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Return the Immich base URL and a masked API key') and resource (connection info for Immich). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying its unique purpose of populating a placeholder in gallery templates, unlike other tools that manage albums, assets, or search.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Used by skills to populate the {{IMMICH_URL}} placeholder in gallery templates') and provides context on when not to use it (the API key is masked, so it's not for operations needing plaintext keys). This clearly differentiates it from alternatives like update_credentials or other data-fetching tools.

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