Retrieve auth status

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 covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the semantics of the response (password presence, locked-asset access), which is behavioral context the annotations cannot supply, but it omits anything about auth requirements or session prerequisites.

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?

Front-loaded and short: the action, then the concrete payload, then a provenance tag. The only waste is the restated title as the first line, which duplicates the tool title.

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 session query with no output schema, the description covers what is asked and the key fields returned. The only gap is that the full response shape is not documented for a tool whose return values drive any caller decision.

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 per the baseline a 4 applies. The schema is empty and there is nothing further for the description to clarify.

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 names a specific verb and resource (retrieve auth status) and enumerates the concrete facts returned: whether the user has a password and whether the session can access locked assets. That is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, though it never names the closest alternatives (validate_access_token, get_my_user, get_sessions).

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to any sibling tool. 'Current session' implies context but leaves the agent to infer whether this or immich_validate_access_token / immich_get_sessions is the right call.

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