Get the admin configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds only the raw HTTP operation string ('GET /admin/config'), which conveys nothing about required admin auth, what fields the config contains, or whether defaults are merged in. Minimal value beyond structured data.

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 title, the first line, and 'Retrieve admin configuration' all restate the same idea across three lines, which is redundant padding rather than useful structure. No real information is front-loaded because there is little to convey.

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 parameterless read-only getter, the description is minimally viable, but it omits the one thing an agent needs given the crowded config-tool family: what distinguishes admin config from the other config endpoints. It is complete on mechanics but not on disambiguation.

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. Baseline 4 applies; the empty schema is self-explanatory.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('admin configuration'), but the sibling set contains immich_get_config, immich_get_server_config, immich_get_public_config, and immich_get_user_config, and nothing in the description explains how admin config differs from these. The 'admin' qualifier and 'tag: Config (admin)' hint at scope but leave the agent to guess which config surface this returns.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With four near-identical config-getter siblings, the description gives the agent no basis for choosing this tool over immich_get_config or immich_get_server_config.

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