immich-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, repeatable read operations. The description adds value by specifying 'full metadata' (implying comprehensive data retrieval) and 'single asset' (clarifying scope), but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Get full metadata', 'for a single asset', 'by its ID') contributes directly to understanding, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on output format (e.g., what 'full metadata' includes), error cases, or integration with sibling tools, which could enhance agent decision-making despite the annotations covering safety aspects.

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 the parameter 'asset_id' fully documented as 'Asset UUID'. The description adds minimal semantic context by implying the ID is used to fetch metadata, but doesn't provide extra details like format examples or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 description clearly states the action ('Get full metadata') and resource ('for a single asset by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'immich.assets.list' (which retrieves multiple assets) or 'immich.assets.view' (which might serve a different purpose), missing full sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like retrieving detailed metadata for a specific asset versus listing multiple assets, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'immich.assets.list' for broader queries, leaving usage context implied at best.

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