appwrite_get_documents_by_ids

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure but fails to mention critical aspects: whether partial failures return results for found IDs or fail entirely, authentication requirements, or what the response structure contains.

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 extremely brief and front-loaded, but contains the unexplained '[UNIFIED]' token which wastes valuable description space without aiding agent comprehension.

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 tool with 4 required parameters traversing a hierarchical data model (site/database/collection/document) and no output schema, the single-sentence description is inadequate. It lacks explanation of the containment hierarchy and error handling behavior.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate, but it only implicitly references document_ids via 'by their IDs'. It provides no context for the hierarchical relationship between site, database_id, and collection_id parameters.

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 tool retrieves multiple documents using their specific IDs, distinguishing it from single-document retrieval or list operations. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise that doesn't add semantic value for the agent.

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 provided on when to use this bulk fetch tool versus alternatives like appwrite_get_document (single) or appwrite_list_documents (query-based). The agent cannot determine the appropriate tool selection strategy from the description alone.

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