Get system configuration defaults

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of genuine value: the exact endpoint (GET /system-config/defaults) and the deprecation warning, which annotations do not convey. It still omits auth requirements and return shape, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 with the operation name and purpose in the first two lines, followed by a compact endpoint/tag breadcrumb and a deprecation note. Slight redundancy between the title line and the first sentence, but nothing is wasteful.

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 call with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials. The gap is the unnamed replacement operation for a deprecated tool and the failure to differentiate from the three other *_config_defaults siblings, which is exactly the information an agent 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 needed by framing the call as a bare retrieval.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get system configuration defaults') and even names the underlying endpoint, so the basic purpose is clear. However, the sibling set contains immich_get_config, immich_get_admin_config_defaults, immich_get_user_config_defaults, immich_get_public_config_defaults and immich_get_admin_config, and nothing here distinguishes 'system' config from admin/user/public config variants. An agent cannot confidently route among these without opening schemas.

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 usage signal is 'DEPRECATED — prefer the replacement operation if one exists', which tells the agent the tool is discouraged but names no replacement and gives no condition for choosing among the config-defaults siblings. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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