Get integrity report by type

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 only the admin/maintenance context and endpoint, saying nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, or auth requirements beyond the 'admin' tag.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first line. It does restate the title verbatim in the first sentence, a minor redundancy, but nothing is bloated.

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 admin report tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it does not describe what a 'flagged item' contains or how pagination/cursors should be driven. Annotations carry the safety profile, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 the enum values (untracked_file, missing_file, checksum_mismatch) and the limit/cursor semantics are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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 gives a clear verb+resource: 'Get all flagged items by integrity report type,' which tells an agent exactly what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like immich_get_integrity_report_csv, immich_get_integrity_report_file, and immich_get_integrity_report_summary.

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 'by type' phrasing implies this is the typed listing variant, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no mention of the csv/summary/file alternatives. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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