immich-photo-manager

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by stating it returns 'pong' if connected, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it lacks details on error handling, timeouts, or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 that are front-loaded and zero waste: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second specifies the return value. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, simple connectivity check), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and return value, and an output schema exists, so detailed return explanations are unnecessary. However, it could slightly improve by mentioning if authentication is required or typical use cases, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, but it correctly implies no inputs are required. Since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, as the description adequately addresses the lack of 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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Immich server connectivity'), and it distinguishes from all sibling tools which perform data operations rather than connectivity checks. It provides the exact outcome ('Returns 'pong' if connected'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 implies usage context by stating it checks server connectivity, suggesting it should be used to verify if the server is reachable before attempting other operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, though the sibling tools list shows no direct alternatives for connectivity testing.

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