Search asset files

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 nothing behavioral beyond restating a read ("Returns all matching asset files") and echoing the underlying GET endpoint, providing no new context about pagination, ordering, or result shape.

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 very short, front-loaded with the verb+resource, and contains no filler or repetition of the input schema. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, which is a content problem rather than a structure problem.

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?

With five parameters, a required assetId, and no output schema, the description should at least clarify what an "asset file" is (derived renditions such as thumbnail/preview/encoded video) and what a match looks like. It instead offers only a tautological restatement of the name and the raw endpoint, leaving the agent to infer scope entirely from the schema.

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%, with each of the five parameters individually documented (including the type enum and the assetId filter), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ("Search asset files") and states the result set is all matching files. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as immich_get_asset_file, immich_download_asset_file, or immich_delete_asset_file, so an agent cannot tell which of these asset-file operations is the right one from the text alone.

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 statement of prerequisites (e.g., that an assetId is required, or that this lists derivative files rather than originals), and no mention of alternatives. The only routing hint is the Immich operation tag, which is metadata rather than usage instruction.

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