immich-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context by mentioning 'Supports pagination,' which isn't covered by annotations and is crucial for understanding how to handle large result sets. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds critical behavioral context about pagination, making every sentence earn its place.

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 list tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It mentions pagination but doesn't detail return format (e.g., structure of people objects) or error conditions. Given the complexity and lack of output schema, it could provide more context about what 'recognized people' entails.

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 67% (2 out of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain 'with_hidden' or clarify pagination behavior). With moderate schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for gaps.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all recognized people from face recognition'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'immich.people.get' (which retrieves a specific person) or 'immich.people.statistics' (which provides aggregated data), so it doesn't reach the highest 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 sibling tools like 'immich.people.get' for retrieving specific people or 'immich.search.smart' for broader searches, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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