Retrieve assets by city

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the result is one asset per city (de-duplicated), not all matching assets. It does not describe pagination or ordering, but the core semantic is disclosed.

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 key action, and the clarifying second sentence earns its place by explaining the one-per-city behavior. The opening line duplicates the title, which is minor redundancy, but overall it is compact and well ordered.

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 no-parameter, read-only search endpoint with no output schema, the description supplies enough: what it returns (one asset per city), why (places page thumbnails), and the underlying operation (GET /search/cities). Ordering/pagination details are absent but minor for this scope.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify; per the rubric this is a baseline 4. No description text is needed or expected here, and none is misleadingly provided.

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 (assets by city), and clarifies the distinctive semantics — 'a list of assets with each asset belonging to a different city.' An agent can tell it is not a bulk asset fetch. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like immich_search_places or immich_get_map_markers, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

The description gives a usage context ('used on the places pages to show a single thumbnail for each city'), which implies intent, but never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as immich_search_places or immich_get_map_markers. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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