get_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the default radius and the nature of the operation (reading context around a message). It does not mention error handling, permissions, or rate limits, but for a simple retrieval tool, the transparency is adequate.

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 minimal and front-loaded with the core functionality. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Two sentences efficiently convey purpose and usage.

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 tool's low complexity (3 parameters, no enums or nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It provides usage context (after search_messages) but lacks details on edge cases like invalid message_id.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'radius' (number of neighbors, default 5), but does not clarify 'chat_id' or 'message_id' beyond their names. This is insufficient for complete understanding of the 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 it retrieves context around a message (neighboring messages) with a configurable radius. It uses specific verbs and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by recommending usage after search_messages.

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 advises using this tool after search_messages to understand conversation threads, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives.

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