immich-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, repeatable read operations. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying the breakdown types (images, videos, total), but doesn't disclose further traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 ('Get asset counts') and adds necessary detail ('broken down by type'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (0 parameters, read-only/idempotent annotations) and lack of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool returns (counts by type) but doesn't cover response format or potential errors, leaving some gaps for a statistical tool.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's function without redundant parameter details, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 asset counts broken down by type (images, videos, total).' It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'asset counts' with breakdown details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'immich.assets.list' or 'immich.people.statistics', which would require a 5.

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. There are no mentions of when-not scenarios or explicit alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., 'immich.assets.list' for detailed asset lists or 'immich.people.statistics' for people-related counts).

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