Retrieve memories

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 covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the default descending-by-creation-date sort and the alternative asc/random orders. It says nothing about pagination limits, permissions, or what a memory object contains.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the core purpose first, then the sorting nuance. Slightly wasteful in that 'Retrieve memories' duplicates the title verbatim before the real sentence, but overall the text is tight and every sentence carries information.

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 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it never explains the interactive filters (isSaved, isTrashed, isUpcoming, 'for' date filtering) that an agent would need to choose arguments for a 'memories' query, and gives no sense of the returned shape or pagination envelope.

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%, so all nine parameters are already documented in the schema (id, for, page, size, type, order, isSaved, isTrashed, isUpcoming). The description only adds the default value/semantics for 'order', which is minor value on top of a fully documented schema; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Retrieve a list of memories') and pins the underlying operation (GET /memories), which implicitly distinguishes it from the singular immich_get_memory. However, it never names or contrasts against any sibling explicitly, so the agent must infer the boundary between listing and fetching a single memory.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over immich_get_memory, immich_search_random, immich_memories_statistics, or immich_create_memory; it only describes what is returned.

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