Get version history

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 adds only that the payload is a historical list; it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or auth requirements, which is an acceptable but minimal contribution on top of the annotations.

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, with the resource statement up front and the raw endpoint noted at the end. The only waste is the first line, which merely restates the tool title before the actual description.

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 tool whose annotations fully cover the safety profile, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. The absence of an output schema is acceptable since the description names what is returned (past server versions).

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 the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the resource itself.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve a list of past versions the server has been on.' An agent knows exactly what this returns. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like immich_get_server_version or immich_get_version_check, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. Given several version-related siblings (immich_get_server_version, immich_get_version_check, immich_get_version_check_state), the description should state when history is wanted versus the current version, but it offers no such routing.

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