immich-mcp

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

The annotations already provide 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 'by ID' which clarifies the lookup mechanism, but doesn't mention what details are returned, error handling for invalid IDs, or any rate limits. 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 perfectly concise at 7 words - a single sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and understandable. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of function.

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 simple read operation with good annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. Without an output schema, the description doesn't explain what 'details' are returned (person name, metadata, relationships, etc.), which would be helpful context. The tool's simplicity keeps it from being incomplete, but it doesn't provide rich contextual information about the returned data structure.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single 'person_id' parameter as a 'Person UUID'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't clarify UUID format, provide examples, or explain where to obtain person IDs. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 action ('Get details') and resource ('for a specific person by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'immich.people.list' beyond the singular vs. plural distinction, missing an opportunity to clarify this is for retrieving individual person records rather than listing multiple people.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention its sibling 'immich.people.list' for listing multiple people or 'immich.people.update' for modifying person details. There's no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases for retrieving individual person records.

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