Get integrity report summary

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 the useful context that this is an admin-scoped operation, but says nothing about return format, pagination, or rate behavior, so it adds only modest value.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the operative definition ('count of the items flagged in each integrity report') up front. The repeated title line and the raw endpoint/tag line are mildly redundant but still compact and readable.

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 tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description conveys enough: what it returns (counts per report) and that it is an admin maintenance call. Only the absence of routing guidance to sibling report endpoints keeps it from being fully complete.

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 requires no parameter documentation. Baseline 4 applies; there is nothing further for the description to clarify about 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 (Get) and resource (integrity report summary) and clarifies the output is 'a count of the items flagged in each integrity report', which distinguishes it from the sibling immich_get_integrity_report (full report) and the csv/file variants. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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. The 'Maintenance (admin)' tag hints at context, but the description never routes the agent between this summary and immich_get_integrity_report, immich_get_integrity_report_csv, or immich_get_integrity_report_file, leaving selection to inference.

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