Retrieve asset metadata by key

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond name/title/schema — no mention of behavior when the key is missing, authorization needs, or response shape — so it earns little credit even against the lowered bar.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the first line duplicates the title verbatim and the second sentence largely restates the first, making a meaningful fraction of the text redundant. The endpoint/tag footer is useful metadata but the prose does not fully earn its space.

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 simple two-param read with full schema coverage, the description is adequate. However, with no output schema, it should describe what is returned (a single value, an object, or nothing when the key is absent) and it does not, leaving a small but real 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%, so both 'id' (Asset ID) and 'key' (Metadata key) are already documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'specific metadata key associated with the specified asset' merely restates those semantics without adding format, constraints, or examples, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource (retrieve the value of a metadata key for a given asset) and the 'by_key' scope implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling immich_get_asset_metadata, which returns all keys. It is clear what the tool does, though the sibling contrast is never made explicit.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative is named anywhere in the description. It never tells the agent to prefer immich_get_asset_metadata when the key is unknown, nor states any prerequisite (e.g. the key must already exist). Usage is left entirely to inference.

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