Retrieve user statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the backing endpoint and tag, and says nothing about what the statistics contain, whether filters combine, or result cardinality. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 opening line merely restates the title, and the 'Immich operation: …' line is boilerplate, so roughly half the text is redundant. It is short and front-loaded, but not every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would ideally indicate what the returned asset statistics comprise (counts, size, breakdowns). It does not, though for a simple read-only filtered lookup with complete parameter documentation the remaining gap is modest.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% – every parameter (id, isTrashed, isFavorite, visibility) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no filtering semantics or syntax beyond what the schema already supplies, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 second sentence gives a specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve asset statistics for a specific user,' which is clearer than the tautological first line. It does not, however, distinguish this admin user-statistics endpoint from sibling statistics tools such as immich_get_asset_statistics, immich_get_album_statistics, or immich_get_person_statistics.

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 description never states when to use this admin statistics endpoint versus the non-admin or per-asset/per-album statistics siblings, nor any prerequisites (admin scope, target user id). The 'Users (admin)' tag hint is boilerplate metadata, not usage guidance.

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