immich-photo-manager

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'Get album details' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' include beyond asset IDs. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one explaining the parameter. It's front-loaded with the main function. However, the second sentence is somewhat redundant as it repeats 'album_id' from the schema, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, which are important for a tool with no annotations. The output schema likely handles return values, so that gap is mitigated.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'album_id' by explaining it as 'The album's unique ID,' which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's minimal title 'Album Id.' With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adequately compensates, though it could specify format or constraints.

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 ('Get') and resource ('album details including all asset IDs'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_albums' by focusing on a single album's details rather than listing multiple albums. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_asset_info' which might overlap in providing asset-related information.

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 (e.g., needing an album_id), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'list_albums' for browsing or 'get_asset_info' for individual asset details. Usage is implied only through the parameter description.

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