Smart asset search

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

Annotations give a profile (openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), but readOnlyHint=false on what is functionally a search is counterintuitive and the description does nothing to explain it. There is no mention of result limits, pagination behavior, auth requirements, or the cost/latency of ML inference.

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, but the first line is a verbatim restatement of the title, which is wasted space, and the 'Immich operation: POST /search/smart' line is implementation detail of marginal value to an agent.

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 35-parameter tool with deeply nested filter objects and no output schema, the description is far too thin: it says nothing about the query field, filter semantics, defaults (size=100), or pagination. The complexity of the input demands substantially more guidance than is present.

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?

Nominal coverage is 100%, but every schema description is boilerplate ('query (request body)', 'city (request body)') carrying zero semantics. With 35 parameters including the crucial query, filter, and pagination fields, the description explains none of them — an agent gets no help on what to supply.

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 (search) and resource (assets) and adds the distinguishing mechanism: ML vector relevance rather than keyword matching. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the obvious sibling immich_search_assets, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The phrase 'using machine learning vectors to determine relevance' implies when this is appropriate (semantic/natural-language queries) versus a plain search, but it never states that condition explicitly or points to immich_search_assets as the alternative. Usage is inferable, not directed.

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