Search large assets

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

Annotations are present (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), which covers the safety profile, but the description adds essentially nothing behavioral: no pagination/result-count semantics beyond the default size, no statement of what threshold defines "large," and no details on the deprecation (since when, what to migrate to).

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 text is short and the operation line and deprecation banner are boilerplate, but the deprecation sentence ("prefer the replacement operation if one exists") consumes space without conveying actionable information, while the one genuinely load-bearing question — the size threshold — is omitted.

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 31-parameter, zero-required search endpoint with no output schema and a deprecation flag, the description is far too thin: it neither explains the "large" criterion, nor names a replacement endpoint, nor hints at result ordering or caps. An agent would have to guess both the semantics and the migration path.

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% across all 31 parameters, so the schema already documents every field and the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional meaning about any parameter — notably it never explains minFileSize, the parameter that actually implements the "large" concept.

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 verb and resource ("Search for assets") but the qualifier is circular: assets "considered large based on specified criteria" never says what makes an asset large (a byte threshold, a preset, the minFileSize param). It also does not distinguish this from sibling immich_search_assets, so an agent cannot tell the two apart 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 or when-not-to-use guidance relative to immich_search_assets or the other search_* siblings. The deprecation warning says only "prefer the replacement operation if one exists" — it never names the replacement, so it cannot actually route the agent anywhere.

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