qdrant-find

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, performance considerations, or potential side effects, leaving significant gaps.

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 uses bullet points for clarity. However, there is slight redundancy among the listed use cases (e.g., find by content vs access for analysis), which could be tightened.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage reasonably well. However, it lacks behavioral transparency and does not describe return values, which would be helpful for a complete picture.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters ('What to search for' and 'The collection to search in') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score is appropriate.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Look up memories in Qdrant.' It lists specific use cases (find by content, access for analysis, get personal info), differentiating from the sibling 'qdrant-store' which likely handles storage.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool with bullet points. While it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives, the sibling 'qdrant-store' provides implicit contrast, making the usage context clear.

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