qdrant_collection_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond those by stating that the tool fails with a clear error when the collection does not exist, which is useful behavioral context an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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 well-structured: main purpose first, then failure behavior, then a concrete example. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 single-parameter, read-only info tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the necessary invocation details. The failure case is explicitly disclosed, and the example makes the parameter usage clear.

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%, but there is only one parameter and the example {'collection_name': 'docs'} demonstrates its shape. The description partially compensates for the missing schema documentation, though it does not explain allowed values, naming constraints, or format expectations beyond the parameter title.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('full config and status of one collection'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like qdrant_collection_exists and qdrant_collection_list. The singular 'one collection' removes ambiguity.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving details about a single existing collection, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over qdrant_collection_exists, qdrant_collection_list, or qdrant_health_check. The failure case is mentioned, which helps set expectations, but no alternatives or exclusion conditions are given.

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