Search random assets

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

Annotations give readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which already signals this is a read-like, open-world, non-idempotent operation. The description adds 'random selection' and mentions the underlying Immich operation (POST /search/random), which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination, whether results are returned in random order, or size/content limits beyond what the schema provides.

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: purpose in the first sentence, supplementary detail in the second, and operational metadata in the third. No wasted words, though the 'Immich operation' line is boilerplate rather than descriptive.

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 33-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but not incorrect. It tells the agent what the tool does at a high level, but it omits result-shape expectations, randomness semantics, and how it relates to the many other search tools, leaving gaps an agent must resolve by exploring 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%, so the schema already documents all 33 parameters (many only as '(request body)', but coverage is complete per the metric). The description does not add syntax or meaning beyond 'based on the provided criteria'. Baseline 3 applies when 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search random assets') and adds 'Retrieve a random selection of assets based on the provided criteria', which clarifies the operation. It is clear, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like immich_search_assets or immich_search_smart, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus immich_search_assets, immich_search_smart, or other search variants. The description only restates the operation; no when/when-not or alternatives are given.

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