get_message_context

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

The description reveals that results are sorted chronologically and imposes a maximum of 50 for before/after parameters. These behavioral details go beyond the input schema, but it lacks information about idempotency, required message existence, or that it is a read-only operation (no annotations present).

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 remarkably concise: a single sentence stating the purpose followed by a clean bullet list of parameters. Every sentence is essential, and the structure front-loads the core idea.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter meanings, ordering, and limits. It is fully adequate for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting each parameter: chat, message_id, before, after, including default values (5 each) and maximum limits (50). This adds crucial meaning that the schema alone fails to provide.

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 messages before and after a given message_id for context ('取某条消息前后各若干条，用来看上下文'). It specifies the exact resource and action, distinguishing it from generic get_messages but not explicitly from siblings like get_replies.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_messages, search_messages). The description only explains the functionality but does not set expectations for when this is preferred or not.

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