Get asset metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description only adds the underlying REST mapping (GET /assets/{id}/metadata), which is useful but adds no new behavioral constraints such as return size or pagination.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first line and kept to three short lines. The trailing API/tag line is boilerplate but cheap and useful for tracing.

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 read-only single-parameter lookup with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what the agent needs to call it correctly; only the absence of alternatives guidance keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100% (uuid format documented inline), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing beyond referring to 'the specified asset'.

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 (metadata key-value pairs) scoped to a single asset, which implicitly separates it from immich_get_asset_metadata_by_key. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with that sibling or with update/delete_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?

Usage is only implied by the scope ('all metadata key-value pairs for the specified asset'); there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to immich_get_asset_metadata_by_key when only one key is needed.

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