immich_get_asset

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait that the result is an image the model can see (rather than a metadata record), which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or whether the returned image is a downscaled preview versus the original.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its distinguishing return behavior, zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing signal.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description correctly explains what comes back (a viewable image), which is the most important thing an agent needs. With only two fully documented parameters and no annotations to compensate for, the main missing piece is any note on limits such as permissions or large-asset handling.

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 100% and both parameters (id, size enum) are documented there, including the default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Fetch a photo/video") and, critically, specifies the return modality ("return it as an image the LLM can see"), which distinguishes it from metadata-returning siblings like immich_get_asset_info and immich_get_asset_by_date. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the split from the wording alone.

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?

"Use this to visually inspect a photo" gives a clear positive trigger, but there is no guidance on when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer when metadata rather than pixels is wanted. Usage is implied rather than bounded.

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