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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the version information includes. It adequately describes the basic operation but lacks details about behavioral constraints or response characteristics.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it immediately understandable.

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, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states what the tool does, though it could benefit from slightly more context about authentication or typical use cases. The output schema will handle return value documentation.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to discuss parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema already indicates no inputs.

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 action ('Get') and target resource ('Immich server version'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but since this is a unique metadata retrieval tool among siblings focused on assets, albums, and links, the purpose is sufficiently clear without sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's obvious this retrieves server version information, there's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or relationship to other tools like 'ping' or 'get_connection_info' that might provide related system information.

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