Retrieve edits for an existing asset

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 fully covered. The description adds that the result is a series of edit actions (crop, rotate, mirror), which is useful content context, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what an empty result means.

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 first line restates the title verbatim, which is redundant, before the second line delivers the real content. The trailing 'Immich operation: GET /assets/{id}/edits · tag: Assets' is metadata that does not help an agent decide or invoke, so the description is padded rather than tightly front-loaded.

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 whose annotations carry the full safety profile, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the resource and describes the returned edit actions. With no output schema, a fuller account of the return shape would help, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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%, so the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only refers to 'the specified asset' without adding format or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

States a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (edits for an asset), and even enumerates the edit kinds (crop, rotate, mirror). It does not, however, differentiate from close siblings like immich_edit_asset or immich_remove_asset_edits, so an agent must infer the read-vs-write distinction from annotations rather than the text.

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?

The description never says when to use this tool versus immich_edit_asset (apply edits) or immich_remove_asset_edits (delete edits). Usage is only implied by the verb 'retrieve', with no conditions, prerequisites, or named alternatives.

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