immich_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context by disclosing the required auth header (x-api-key), which the annotations do not. It adds nothing about pagination, result limits, rate limits, or what an empty search returns, so the addition is real but thin.

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 size is defensible for 16 operations, but the structure is broken: operation names and their descriptions run together with no delimiter ("Retrieve assets by city get_assets_by_original_path: GET /view/folder."), making the list hard to parse. Several entries are tautological restatements of the action name ("get_map_markers: GET /map/markers. Retrieve map markers"), so words are spent without adding meaning.

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 16-action router with freeform query/body objects and no output schema, the description is not complete enough: it never indicates which parameters each action requires or what shape the body takes for the POST search actions. There is also no mention of return values. The detail that file_path, sidecar_path, checksum, and save_path exist in the schema but map to none of the listed search actions is left entirely unexplained.

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 eight parameters are documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes only the GET/POST distinction per action, which hints at whether an action expects query versus body content, but it never states which query or body fields a given action accepts.

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 opening clause names the resource and scope unambiguously ("covers the search toolset (16 operations)"), and each action is mapped to a verb and REST endpoint, so an agent can see this is the read/search surface rather than albums, assets, people, or server. It falls short of a 5 because the enumeration is machine-generated route mapping rather than a statement of what the tool as a whole returns or accomplishes.

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 guidance, no routing advice versus the sibling tools, and no help choosing between overlapping actions such as search_assets, search_smart, search_large_assets, and search_random. The action labels imply some selection logic ("Search people", "Search places"), but nothing states the conditions under which one action should be picked over another, or when to use this tool instead of immich_assets.

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