Get the configuration with user visibility

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 fully carried by structured data. The description's only added behavior is the visibility scope of the returned properties, with no mention of caching, auth requirements, or response shape.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the scope stated up front. Minor waste: the title line is repeated verbatim as the first sentence, and the raw 'Immich operation: GET /config' line is metadata rather than agent-facing guidance.

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 and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is nearly complete for invocation. But there is no output schema and the description gives no indication of what the returned configuration object contains, which leaves a real gap for an agent that must decide between this and its sibling config getters.

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. Baseline 4 applies per the zero-parameter rule.

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 clear verb and resource ('Retrieve the system configuration properties that are visible to logged in users'), and the 'user visibility' scope does distinguish it from the public and admin config siblings. However, it never names the close siblings it must be chosen over (get_config, get_server_config, get_public_config, get_admin_config), so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite at least four sibling config-retrieval tools existing. The only routing signal is the implied 'logged in users' context embedded in the purpose sentence.

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