Stream sync changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the genuinely useful behavioral fact that the response is a streamed JSON-lines payload rather than a single object. However it omits important behavioral context for this endpoint, such as the sync-ack loop and what `reset` does to client state. There is also a mild tension: the description frames this as a "retrieve" operation while annotations mark it non-read-only, though for a POST-based streaming endpoint this is conventional rather than a true contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded and short: the purpose sentence leads, support context follows, and the API mapping line (POST /sync/stream) is useful for tracing. The only waste is the title being restated verbatim as the first line.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description needn't explain return values, but for an unusual streaming sync endpoint it leaves out the operational context an agent would need — that a stream must be paired with an acknowledgment and what `reset` changes. Adequate but with clear gaps for this tool's complexity.

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 both parameters, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation and the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it never explains what `types` selects or what `reset` does to synchronization state.

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 names a specific verb+resource ("Retrieve a JSON lines streamed response of changes for synchronization") and states the consumer (mobile app), so the agent can tell what the tool does and roughly who uses it. It does not, however, distinguish this from closely related siblings such as immich_get_sync_ack, immich_send_sync_ack, or immich_delete_sync_ack, which is the main thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

"This endpoint is used by the mobile app to efficiently stay up to date with changes" gives implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that a sync acknowledgment follows), and no alternative named. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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