Download an asset file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it "serves the contents" of the file, hinting at a binary/streamed response (useful since there is no output schema), but says nothing about content type, streaming, or large-file handling.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the action stated in the first line. There is mild redundancy between the title, the name, and the first sentence, but nothing wasteful enough to penalize heavily.

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 download tool with no output schema and no return-value documentation, the description should say what comes back (binary payload, content type, how to handle it). Annotations cover the safety semantics, but the response-side gap leaves the agent under-informed.

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% for the single id parameter (uuid format), so the schema carries parameter meaning fully. The description only says "a specific asset file", adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Download an asset file", "Serve the contents of a specific asset file") and even names the underlying operation GET /asset-files/{id}/download. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings like immich_download_asset, immich_get_asset_file, and immich_view_asset, so an agent cannot tell which one to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The only routing signal is the Immich endpoint/tag metadata, which does not help an agent choose between this tool and immich_download_asset or immich_get_asset_file.

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