Get APK links

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 only that the links target the current server version and names the underlying GET /server/apk-links operation; it says nothing about auth requirements or return shape. With annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes before the operation metadata. The title is repeated verbatim as the first line, which is minor redundancy, but there is no wasted prose overall.

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 whose annotations already carry the safety profile, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. It does not explain the return payload, and there is no output schema, but the resource ('links to the APKs') is self-descriptive enough that this is a minor gap.

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 the schema cannot be improved by parameter prose; per the rubric this is a baseline 4. Nothing in the description is needed to clarify 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?

States a specific verb (retrieve/get) and resource (APK links for the current server version), which is more specific than a tautological restatement of the title. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many other immich_get_* siblings, so an agent gets no routing signal beyond the name.

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 phrase 'for the current server version' hints at context but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the large set of sibling get_* tools. An agent must infer the call context entirely.

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