Get the public configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only added behavioral value is that the returned properties are publicly visible, which is real but modest; it says nothing about authentication requirements or what the payload contains.

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-loaded, leading with the core action. The first line merely restates the title and the trailing 'Immich operation' line is metadata boilerplate, so there is minor redundancy, but nothing is bloated.

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 getter with annotations fully covering its safety profile, the description is sufficient to know what it does and how to call it. The absence of an output schema means the returned config keys are undocumented, but that is a minor gap for such a simple endpoint.

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 baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Get the public configuration', 'Retrieve the system configuration properties') and adds the scope qualifier 'visible to everyone,' which hints at the public/unauthenticated nature distinguishing it from admin config siblings. However, it never names the closest alternates (immich_get_config, immich_get_admin_config, immich_get_public_config_defaults), so the 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?

'Visible to everyone' implies this is the unauthenticated/public variant, which is a usable contextual cue, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of the admin or defaults variants, and no prerequisites noted. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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