Retrieve map markers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the scope/magnitude hint ('every asset with location data') and says nothing about result size, pagination, or the shape of each returned marker — adequate but minimal given the lower bar.

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 body is short, but the first line merely restates the tool title and the closing 'Immich operation: GET /map/markers · tag: Map' line is boilerplate that adds no decision-relevant content. The one genuinely informative sentence sits between two low-value lines.

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, no-required-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is fetched and its scope, and the schema covers all filters. It could be more complete by noting the result volume or that each marker pairs a coordinate with its asset, but nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

All six filter parameters are documented in the schema at 100% coverage, so the schema already carries the semantic load. The description adds no explanation of how isArchived, isFavorite, withPartners, withSharedAlbums, or the date bounds affect the marker set, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Retrieve map markers') and clarifies the payload: latitude/longitude coordinates for every asset with location data. The word 'every' implicitly distinguishes it from the album-scoped sibling immich_get_album_map_markers, but that sibling is never named explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative. The scope phrase 'every asset with location data' only implies that this is the global (non-album) variant, leaving the agent to infer the routing decision.

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