Get HLS main playlist

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 that the payload is an HLS main playlist listing all variants and exposes the underlying REST endpoint (GET /assets/{id}/video/stream/main.m3u8), which is useful context, but it says nothing about auth requirements or what the returned playlist text looks like.

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 and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, followed by the return semantics and the endpoint mapping. Nothing is redundant, though the endpoint line is more provenance metadata than agent-facing guidance.

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 tool with no output schema and annotation-covered safety, the description covers the essential what, but leaves the two auxiliary parameters unexplained and gives no hint about the playlist's content type or structure. Adequate but with clear gaps given the low schema coverage.

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 only 33%: id carries a uuid format hint, while key and slug are entirely undocumented in the schema. The description's 'for the asset' weakly implies id identifies the asset but adds no syntax, format, or meaning for key or slug, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Get HLS main playlist', 'Returns an HLS main playlist with all available variants for the asset'), so an agent knows exactly what it fetches. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as immich_get_media_playlist or immich_get_segment, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the related playlist/segment tools. The only implicit cue is 'for the asset', which hints at the required id but does not tell the agent when this playlist is preferable to the media playlist or segment endpoints.

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