Download flagged file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that the file may not exist ('if one exists') and that this is an admin-tagged endpoint, but says nothing about the response form or what happens when no file is flagged.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the endpoint/tag metadata tucked at the end. Minor waste: the first line simply restates the title before the informative 'untracked/broken file' sentence.

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 admin download endpoint with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the definition is adequate. It stops short of explaining the conditional-existence behavior or the admin prerequisite in prose, leaving those to be inferred.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents it as a uuid. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 concrete verb (Download) and resource (the untracked/broken file from the integrity report), and the 'if one exists' qualifier pins down exactly which artifact is returned. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling list/summary integrity endpoints, though it does not name them.

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 guidance on when to reach for this versus immich_get_integrity_report, _summary, or _csv. The only hint is the conditional 'if one exists', which implies usage after a report has flagged a file, but the agent must infer that context entirely.

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