Retrieve version check state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — it never says what the state object contains, whether the check is triggered elsewhere, or whether auth is required, so it merely restates the annotations in prose.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the first line duplicates the title and the second sentence largely restates the first; only the endpoint/tag line adds new information. Mild redundancy keeps it from being a clean example of economy.

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 with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is serviceable but thin: it never characterizes the returned state or ties the tool to any workflow, leaving ambiguity against the other version-related reads.

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 per the rubric this is the baseline 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify 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 names a specific verb and resource — retrieve the current state of the version check process — which is clear on its own. However, it does nothing to separate itself from close siblings like immich_get_version_check, immich_get_version_history, or immich_get_server_version, so an agent still has to infer which version-related read it wants.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the adjacent version-check tools it could be confused with. The only usage signal is the endpoint path, which the agent must interpret unaided.

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