qdrant_points_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: unknown IDs are silently omitted rather than raising errors, and the only failure mode is a missing collection. This is useful for an agent predicting edge-case outcomes.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action and key behavioral caveat appear in the first line, followed by a failure condition and a concrete example. Every sentence adds information without 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?

Given the rich annotations and existing output schema, the description covers the key behaviors an agent needs: retrieval semantics, missing-ID handling, and failure mode. The only gap is the under-documented optional parameters, but those are simple booleans with clear names and defaults, so the overall picture is reasonably complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. The example documents collection_name and ids, but with_payload and with_vectors are never mentioned, leaving their semantics entirely to their titles and defaults. The required parameters are illustrated, but optional parameters are neglected.

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 points by ID, which distinguishes it from query/scroll/list siblings. The behavior note ('unknown ids are simply omitted') further clarifies the operation's scope. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls just short of 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 description implies the tool is for fetching specific points by ID but provides no guidance on when to choose this over qdrant_query, qdrant_points_scroll, or other siblings. There is no comparison, exclusion, or alternative mention.

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