Retrieve an asset file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful clarification that this returns metadata rather than file bytes, but says nothing about auth requirements, output format or size, or whether the asset must be owned by the caller.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes first, followed by the useful endpoint/tag provenance line. No padding, though the title line is essentially repeated as the opening sentence.

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 full annotation coverage, no output schema, and no nesting, the definition is minimally sufficient. It could still be clearer about what 'asset file' means versus the asset itself and about which sibling to pick, which is the main gap.

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 required uuid parameter. The description only refers to 'a specific asset file' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the 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 (asset file), and adds that it returns metadata, which distinguishes it from the content-delivering download_asset_file sibling. However it does not distinguish itself from the many other asset-reading siblings such as immich_get_asset_info or immich_get_asset_metadata.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives despite the tool sitting next to immich_download_asset_file, immich_get_asset_info and immich_get_asset_metadata in the sibling list. The agent must infer the correct choice entirely on its own.

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