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. It discloses this is a search/read operation (implied by 'search'), mentions pagination behavior with defaults, and indicates it returns photos. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the output contains beyond 'photos'.

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 clear purpose statement upfront, followed by parameter documentation in a readable format. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the core functionality, the second mentions combinable filters, and the parameter list provides essential details without redundancy.

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 this is a search tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and all parameter semantics. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like rate limits or error handling, but the output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantics for all 8 parameters. It explains 'query' accepts natural language descriptions with examples, clarifies location filters (city/state/country), specifies date filters require ISO format, and documents pagination defaults and limits (page default 1, size default 50 max 200).

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 performs 'AI-powered visual search using CLIP' and specifies it searches for photos based on natural language descriptions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_metadata' by emphasizing visual/CLIP-based search rather than metadata-based search.

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 ('Describe what you're looking for in natural language') and mentions it 'can be combined with location and date filters.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like 'search_metadata' from the sibling list.

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