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's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'full metadata' entails beyond the examples. The description is minimal beyond the basic purpose.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise Args section. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second documents the parameter. No wasted words.

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 has an output schema (which likely defines the return structure), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the purpose and parameter adequately for a simple read tool, though more behavioral context would improve completeness given no annotations.

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%, but the description adds the parameter 'asset_id' with a brief explanation ('The unique ID of the asset'), which provides essential semantics beyond the schema's title 'Asset Id'. Since there's only one parameter, this compensates adequately, though more detail on format or sourcing would be helpful.

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 the resource 'full metadata for a specific asset', with specific examples of metadata types (EXIF, GPS, dates, camera). It distinguishes from siblings like get_asset_thumbnail (which returns images) or search_metadata (which searches across assets).

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 implies usage when you need detailed metadata for a single known asset, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like search_metadata for multiple assets or get_asset_thumbnail for visual data. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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