get_connection_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the API key is intentionally masked and explains the rationale (thumbnails as base64 data URIs), which is valuable behavioral context. It does not mention other traits like rate limits or side effects, but for a simple read-only tool this is adequate.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and then providing a concise rationale for masking. Every sentence adds value; there is no waste.

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, clear purpose, and existing output schema), the description covers the return values (base URL, masked key) and the key behavioral detail (masking). It is complete for the intended use case.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. It provides no extra param info, but that is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Return the Immich base URL and a masked API key,' using a specific verb and resource. It also explains its unique role in populating gallery templates, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 clearly indicates that the tool is 'Used by skills to populate the {{IMMICH_URL}} placeholder in gallery templates,' providing clear context for its use. Although it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, the specialized purpose and lack of similar siblings make this guidance sufficient.

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