Search users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only additional signal is the endpoint 'GET /admin/users · tag: Users (admin)', which hints that admin authorization is required, but it says nothing about pagination, filtering behavior, or result size.

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 short and front-loaded, but the second line ('Search for users.') is redundant with the first and earns no place. The endpoint line is the only informative content.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description should at least clarify how it differs from immich_search_users and what the admin scope means. Instead it repeats the title and provides an endpoint string, leaving the agent unable to choose between the admin and non-admin search variants.

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 only two optional filters (id, withDeleted) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so the baseline of 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?

The body text is a pure restatement of the name and title: "Search users" followed by "Search for users." The only added content is the HTTP endpoint string, which is metadata rather than a statement of purpose, and there is no differentiation from the sibling immich_search_users (non-admin variant).

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 is given on when to use this admin search versus the plain immich_search_users sibling, nor any prerequisites such as required admin privileges. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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