Retrieve assets by original path

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that results are children of a specific folder, which is useful context about filtering behavior but does not disclose anything beyond the schema and annotations, such as pagination, sorting, or return format. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is short but somewhat redundant: the first sentence restates the title, and the second adds a clarification. The third line provides operational metadata (Immich operation, tag) which is useful but not front-loaded. Overall structure is adequate but not optimally concise.

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?

Given the tool has one required parameter with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and only annotations covering safety, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'original path' means, how the path should be formatted, or what the return value contains. An agent would need to guess parameter semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It mentions 'a specific folder' and a 'path' indirectly, but does not explain the format, semantics, or expected value of the 'path' parameter. This is a significant gap for a required string parameter.

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 assets) and adds a second, slightly clarifying sentence about children of a folder. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like immich_search_assets or immich_get_unique_original_paths, which are likely used for similar asset-retrieval purposes. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 explicit indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools such as immich_search_assets for broader queries. Usage context 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.