Get system configuration

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 genuinely new behavioral context: the underlying operation (GET /system-config) and deprecation status, which is not in the annotations. It is docked because the deprecation notice is vague — no replacement is identified and no migration deadline or behavior change is stated.

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 body is short and front-loaded, but the first sentence duplicates the title verbatim and the second sentence restates the same idea ('Retrieve the current system configuration'), so two of the four lines are filler. The genuinely informative deprecation warning is buried last.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient for invocation. It falls short of completeness because it neither disambiguates the config scope against several sibling config tools nor names the deprecated operation's replacement, which is the one piece of information an agent most needs here.

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 rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are required and adds nothing misleading; there is simply nothing further to document.

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 and resource ('Get system configuration' / 'Retrieve the current system configuration') that an agent can act on immediately. However, it does not differentiate from the many closely named siblings (immich_get_admin_config, immich_get_server_config, immich_get_public_config, immich_get_user_config, immich_get_config_defaults), so an agent cannot tell which config surface this returns without opening the schema.

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 only guidance is 'DEPRECATED — prefer the replacement operation if one exists,' which is conditional and does not name the replacement tool, leaving the agent unable to act on it. There is no statement of when this tool should be used instead of the sibling config getters.

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