Play asset video

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds that byte range requests are supported, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations, but it does not describe authentication needs, rate limits, or return format.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then streaming behavior, then operation metadata. No wasted words, though the operation metadata line is partly redundant with the tool name and annotations.

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 simple read endpoint with annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose and byte-range support. However, it leaves the 'key' and 'slug' parameters unexplained, and there is no output schema to clarify return values, so an agent has gaps in how to fully invoke the tool.

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% (only the required 'id' has a format note; 'key' and 'slug' are undocumented). The description adds no meaning for any parameter beyond implying the asset is specified, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Play'/'Streams') and resource ('video file for the specified asset'), making the action clear. It implicitly distinguishes streaming from downloading via 'Streams' and byte-range support, but does not explicitly name sibling tools like immich_download_asset or immich_view_asset.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description implies usage by stating it streams video playback, but it does not contrast this tool with alternatives such as downloading or viewing an asset.

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