Get asset statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scoping fact that results are limited to the authenticated user's assets, but says nothing about return shape or whether results respect the filters jointly.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the purpose. The first line restates the title verbatim and the trailing 'Immich operation' line is metadata rather than agent-facing guidance, but neither is costly.

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 statistics endpoint with no output schema, the description never says what statistics come back (counts by type? totals?) or how the three filters combine. With annotations covering safety, this is the main remaining gap and it is only partially acceptable.

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% — all three optional filters (isTrashed, isFavorite, visibility) are documented in the schema, including the enum values. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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+resource ('Get asset statistics') and adds scope ('assets owned by the authenticated user'), which helps distinguish it from server-wide siblings like immich_get_server_statistics. It does not, however, mention the closely-named immich_search_asset_statistics, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. With siblings such as immich_search_asset_statistics, immich_get_album_statistics and immich_get_person_statistics in the catalog, an agent must infer selection purely from the tool name.

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