immich-photo-manager

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it describes the return format (album info + list with specific fields), mentions the up-to-limit constraint, specifies default values and maximums for parameters, and indicates this is a read operation (no destructive implications). It doesn't cover rate limits or authentication needs.

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?

Perfectly structured and concise: purpose statement first, return format second, usage context third, then clean parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundant information. The Args section is well-organized and directly informative.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description provides complete context: clear purpose, behavioral details, full parameter semantics, and usage guidance. The output schema will handle return value documentation, so the description appropriately focuses on what the tool does and how to use it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides excellent parameter semantics: explains what 'album_id' represents, defines the two possible 'size' values with pixel dimensions, specifies default and maximum for 'limit', and clarifies all three parameters' purposes beyond their schema titles.

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 specific action ('Get base64-encoded thumbnails for all photos in an album') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_asset_thumbnail' (single asset) and 'get_thumbnails_batch' (batch processing). It explicitly mentions the resource (album photos) and output format (base64).

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Used for generating visual HTML galleries') and implies usage by specifying it fetches thumbnails for all photos in an album. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'get_asset_thumbnail' for single assets.

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