immich-photo-manager

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get') and describes the return format ('Returns asset IDs with lat/lon coordinates'), but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. It provides basic behavioral information but leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a purpose statement, return value explanation, usage context, and parameter documentation in a clear bullet format. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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 handles return values), no annotations, and good parameter documentation in the description, the description is reasonably complete. However, for a data retrieval tool with filtering capabilities, it could benefit from mentioning expected result formats, pagination behavior, or performance characteristics to be fully comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantic explanations for all parameters: 'Optional ISO date filter' for both date parameters with format examples, and 'Filter favorites only' for the boolean filter. This adds substantial value beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 'all GPS map markers from the library', specifying it returns 'asset IDs with lat/lon coordinates' and helps 'discover all geographic locations in the photo library'. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_metadata or get_asset_info by focusing specifically on geographic data retrieval.

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 ('to discover all geographic locations in the photo library'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. The context is helpful but lacks explicit exclusion criteria or comparison to similar tools.

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