Retrieve the requests sent by a cluster group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful qualifier that results are 'pending' join requests, which narrows expected output, but it does not disclose visibility/authorization constraints or whether results are paginated. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, 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?

The description is short and front-loads the purpose, then adds one clarifying sentence and the operation metadata. The title line and first sentence partially duplicate each other, which is minor waste but not disruptive.

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 single-read tool with fully covered annotations and a simple schema, the description is adequate. It omits what the response contains beyond 'pending requests' and omits permissions/visibility, and there is no output schema to fall back on, so an agent must infer result shape. Minimum viable rather than rich.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single `id` parameter is documented there as a uuid, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description adds no format or scope detail for the id beyond what the schema states, matching the baseline-3 rule for high coverage.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Retrieve the requests sent by a cluster group') and refines it to pending join requests, so the purpose is discernible. It does not, however, name or contrast against the closest sibling immich_get_cluster_group_requests, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'pending requests for other users to join the cluster group', giving a sense of the scenario. There is no explicit when-to-use versus immich_get_cluster_group_requests or immich_get_cluster_group_users, and no stated prerequisites or auth requirements.

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