Get server information

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond a restatement plus the raw endpoint path, disclosing no auth requirements, no payload shape, and no return 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 short and front-loaded, but the opening line 'Get server information' merely duplicates the title and the second line paraphrases it again. The only novel content is the endpoint/tag suffix, so a sentence is spent without earning its place.

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 with full annotation coverage this is minimally adequate, but with no output schema the description could have said what 'about' information is returned (version, features, license, etc.). The agent gets no sense of the payload, which is the main thing it would want from an info endpoint.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. No parameter semantics gap exists.

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?

States a verb (retrieve) and resource (server information), but the phrasing 'a list of information about the server' is vague about what is actually returned. The siblings include immich_get_server_version, immich_get_server_statistics, immich_get_server_config, immich_get_server_features, and immich_get_server_license, yet the description gives no basis for choosing this one over those.

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 exclusions, and no mention of alternatives despite a crowded server-info family of siblings. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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