qq_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'untrusted' and explains that official data is retained verified events while personal is on-demand NapCat history, with cursor direction being backend-dependent. This goes beyond the annotations to clarify data freshness and reliability.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and provider distinctions. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema that may clarify returns, the description covers the most important aspects (provider semantics and cursor behavior) but leaves other required parameters like target and optional parameters like limit and reverse_order without explanation. An agent might struggle to correctly populate all fields without additional context.

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. It adds meaningful context for message_cursor (accepts known returned message_id, backend-dependent direction) and clarifies provider/kind semantics. However, it does not explain limit, target, or reverse_order, leaving those to schema defaults and enums. The description partially compensates but is incomplete for all 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 reads scoped context and explicitly distinguishes between official and personal providers, each with specific semantics. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from sibling tools like qq_send or qq_status.

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 when to use the tool (reading context) and explains the two provider modes, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is indirect and leaves some inference to the agent.

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