Get features

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add useful non-schema context in flagging the operation as DEPRECATED, though it stops short of stating what replaces it or how long it remains available.

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, but it redundantly restates the name ('Get features') before the actual sentence 'Retrieve available features supported by this server.' The generated header 'Immich operation: GET /server/features · tag: Server' is filler from the agent's perspective.

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 server-info call with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The one real gap is the deprecation notice failing to identify the recommended replacement, which would matter most given this tool's projected lifecycle.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('available features supported by this server'), so the agent knows it returns a server capability list. It does not, however, distinguish itself from similarly server-scoped siblings like immich_get_server_config or immich_get_supported_media_types.

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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives; the only hint is a deprecation note that says to 'prefer the replacement operation if one exists' without naming that replacement. The agent is left to guess what supersedes it.

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