immich_search_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that the operation is read-only, does not mention pagination or result ordering, and does not disclose the default result limit (only the schema notes default 20). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the tool's function. It is very efficient, though the trailing 'etc.' introduces mild vagueness about which metadata filters are actually supported. Nothing is wasted structurally.

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 12 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits default behavior when no filters are supplied, pagination details, return format, sort order, and how to choose this tool over immich_search_smart or immich_search_people. More context is needed for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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%, so every parameter is fully documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds a small amount of organizing context by listing categories (date range, location, camera, file type) that map to the parameters, but it provides no additional syntax, format, or default-behavior details beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('photos'), and qualification ('by metadata') with example filter categories. It does not explicitly name its search siblings (immich_search_smart, immich_search_people), but the 'metadata' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from semantic or people-based search. An agent can tell what it does, though not perfectly apart from siblings.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tools are mentioned. With three search siblings in the namespace, routing guidance is important and entirely absent; usage is only implied by the name and description. This leaves the agent to infer when metadata search is appropriate.

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