get_photo

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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the lower bar applies. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the full return field set, that EXIF requires an explicit flag, and that nonexistent IDs are surfaced as 'not found' rather than erroring out. It does not mention permissions or space-boundary behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it returns first, the routing hint second, the not-found edge case last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (the detail payload vs. list_photos) is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned fields comprehensively (filename, folder, taken time, size, resolution, rating, favorite, description, tags, people, GPS, camera, EXIF), so an agent knows what it will get. The not-found handling covers the main surprising edge case for an ID-based lookup.

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 100%, so the schema already documents ids (1-20 from list_photos), exif, and space. The description's 'full EXIF table with exif=true' restates the schema rather than adding syntax or constraints, and it never explains the personal/shared space semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full details for Synology Photos items by id') and then enumerates exactly which fields are returned, including the opt-in EXIF table. An agent can distinguish this from list_photos or get_file_info without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Use it when list_photos' one-line rows aren't enough,' and notes IDs come from list_photos. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. bulk retrieval vs. the download/copy photo tools), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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