Retrieve an 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 covered. The description adds the REST mapping (GET /assets/{id}) and the Assets tag, which is modestly useful context, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what the response 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?

Short and front-loaded, with the key sentence first. The leading 'Retrieve an asset' line duplicates the title and the second line, which is mild waste.

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, the description should hint at what is returned for a detail-fetch tool, and it does not. It is minimally adequate given the annotations cover safety, but an agent gets no information about the returned fields or the meaning of key/slug.

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' carries just 'format: uuid', while 'key' and 'slug' are entirely undocumented. The description does not describe any parameter or explain the role of key/slug, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Retrieve detailed information about a specific asset') and pins the underlying REST operation, so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as immich_get_asset_metadata, immich_get_asset_edits, or immich_view_asset, so an agent gets no signal on which getter 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other asset-read siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'a specific asset'.

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