immich_get_asset_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by stating the response medium ('as JSON') and that the image payload is excluded, but it says nothing about auth/permission requirements, error behavior for a bad id, or whether the read has side effects.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the primary purpose leads and the exclusion follows.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately signals the JSON/EXIF return shape and excludes the image payload. Minor gaps remain around failure modes and permissions, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 there is a single 'id' parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 (Get) and resource (asset metadata/EXIF), and the second sentence carves out what it does not return, which implicitly separates it from immich_get_asset (the image itself). It stops short of naming the distinguishing sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Does not include the image itself' hints that image retrieval belongs to another tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. immich_get_asset vs immich_search_metadata).

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