Get version check status

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 covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that this reports the last run of the version check, but says nothing about auth requirements or rate limits. Reasonable added value over annotations, not rich.

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: purpose first, then a clarifying sentence, then the Immich endpoint mapping. The opening line merely restates the title, which is minor waste, but overall it earns its space.

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 tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description conveys enough to call it correctly. The one gap is that no output schema exists, so it could have named the fields returned (e.g. checkedAt, status), but the sentence about the last run covers the essentials.

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 are no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or under-specifies the empty schema.

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 and resource and adds scope: 'Retrieve information about the last time the version check ran.' This tells the agent what data comes back. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling immich_get_version_check_state or immich_get_version_history, so an agent must open schemas to disambiguate.

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?

Usage is only implied by the tool's nature as a status read; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to immich_get_version_check_state, which appears to cover overlapping ground. Adequate but leaves the sibling-selection decision to inference.

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