immich-photo-manager

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('List'), which implies it is non-destructive, but does not address other behavioral aspects such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second explains the parameter clearly. There is no unnecessary information, and it is front-loaded with the main functionality. A minor point: it could be slightly more polished, but it efficiently conveys essential information.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which should define the return structure), the description is reasonably complete for basic usage. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling, and it does not fully guide usage relative to siblings. With no annotations and some gaps, it meets a minimum viable level but has clear room for improvement.

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 semantics for the single parameter 'shared': 'Filter by shared status. None = all albums.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose and default behavior, which is valuable since the schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only provides a title 'Shared' with no description). The description effectively compensates for the lack of schema documentation, though it could provide more detail on what 'shared status' entails.

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 tool's purpose: 'List all albums with their asset counts.' This specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('albums'), and includes additional information about what is returned ('with their asset counts'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_album' or 'search_metadata', which might also retrieve album information, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 minimal guidance on usage. It mentions the 'shared' parameter for filtering but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_album' (for a single album) or 'search_metadata' (for more complex queries). There is no explicit advice on when or when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names alone.

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