Get time bucket

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond that: the return is a string of asset ids rather than asset objects. It does not disclose pagination, size limits, or what a bucket key looks like, so it is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences plus an operation line, front-loaded with the core behavior. The 'Get time bucket' heading merely restates the title, which is minor waste, but the body is tight and earns its place.

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 16-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does clarify the return shape (asset id string), which is the main thing the schema cannot convey. But it never explains what a 'time bucket' is or how the required timeBucket identifier is obtained, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent trying to construct the call.

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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly every one of the 16 parameters (bbox, order, orderBy, filters, etc.). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a string of all asset ids in a given time bucket.' This is clear enough to know what comes back (asset ids, not full assets). However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling immich_get_time_buckets (plural), which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.

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 guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. immich_search_assets, immich_get_time_buckets), and no stated prerequisites. The 'tag: Timeline' annotation hints at domain grouping but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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