Retrieve album map markers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying REST operation (GET /albums/{id}/map-markers) and tag, but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or what a map marker contains.

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 content is short but redundant: the first line repeats the title verbatim before the actual sentence, and the operation/tag line is machine metadata. The specific information is front-loaded, but the duplication costs a point.

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?

With no output schema, a 3-parameter schema at 33% coverage and two unexplained parameters ('key', 'slug'), the description does not supply enough to call the tool confidently. It should at minimum explain what the optional key/slug parameters do and what marker data is returned.

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 only 33%: 'id' is documented only as 'format: uuid', while 'key' and 'slug' have no description anywhere. The description adds meaning only for 'id' ('by its ID') and does not compensate for the two undocumented parameters.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('map marker information') scoped to 'a specific album by its ID', which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling immich_get_map_markers (global markers). It is clear, though it never explicitly names that sibling as the contrasting case.

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 implied by 'for a specific album by its ID' — the agent can infer this is the album-scoped variant and that an album ID is required. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named, leaving routing to inference.

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