immich-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it specifies what data is retrieved (comment count) but doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. With annotations covering key safety traits, the description adds some value but lacks depth.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and scope, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema) and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage context, parameter nuances, or behavioral traits. For a simple read operation, this is acceptable but leaves gaps that could hinder optimal agent invocation.

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 50% (only 'album_id' has a description), and the description mentions both parameters ('album' and 'specific asset') but doesn't elaborate on their semantics beyond what's implied. It adds marginal value by clarifying that 'asset_id' is optional for counting comments at the album level, but doesn't explain format or constraints. Given the partial schema coverage, this is adequate but not compensatory.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get comment count for an album or specific asset within an album.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('comment count'), and scope ('album or specific asset within an album'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'immich.assets.statistics' or 'immich.people.statistics', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to related tools like 'immich.activities.list' or other statistics tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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