Export integrity report by type as CSV

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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds the CSV output format and the 'Maintenance (admin)' tag, which signals an admin-scoped operation, but says nothing about pagination, size of export, or permissions beyond the 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?

The description is brief and front-loaded, and the endpoint/tag footer is useful navigation context. The first line is a verbatim restatement of the title, which is mild waste, but the remaining lines each carry information.

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 one-parameter, read-only export with no output schema, the description does the essential job of declaring the CSV return format and the admin/maintenance scope. It stops short of explaining what the exported rows contain or how large the payload may be, but nothing critical to invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'type' parameter is a fully enumerated field with its own description, so the schema does all the work. The description only echoes 'by type' and adds no meaning about the enum values or their implications.

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 (export), resource (integrity report), scoping dimension (by type), and output format (CSV), which distinguishes it from siblings like immich_get_integrity_report, immich_get_integrity_report_summary, and immich_get_integrity_report_file. The only weakness is that it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

It says 'for a given type as a CSV', which implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion criteria, and no pointer to the JSON/summary/file siblings that would cover adjacent needs. An agent has to infer the choice 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.