hyperspace_get_points

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a read operation returning vector coordinates and metadata, which is useful, but it says nothing about behavior for missing IDs, permissions, or error conditions.

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 definition is two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema's required fields, but the overall size is appropriate.

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 simple read-by-ID tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose and return content adequately. It leaves gaps around error or missing-ID behavior, which matters more because no annotations are available to fill those in.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the required parameters but adds no format, type, or usage detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve vector coordinate and metadata for a list of point IDs'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from read-oriented siblings such as hyperspace_search_text or hyperspace_get_neighbors, which keeps it from 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 second sentence only restates the required parameters ('Requires collection name and ids array') rather than explaining when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no guidance on when not to use it, or on how to obtain IDs before calling it.

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