chat_get_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that data is returned; it does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, session handling, or what 'compact knowledge-base state' entails. The description is superficial for a tool that likely performs a read operation with optional parameters.

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 extremely concise—two sentences and an example—and front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary verbosity and the example is helpful. However, it lacks structure for explaining parameters or usage, which is a trade-off, but for sheer conciseness it scores well.

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 has two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, when to use the tool, or how the response relates to other chat tools. An agent would need to consult external KB references to understand how to call it correctly, making it insufficient as a standalone description.

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, and the description does not explain the 'session' or 'message_limit' parameters at all. The only example invocation uses no arguments, leaving the agent with no information about what these parameters do or how to set them. This is a critical gap for a tool with non-required 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return recent chat context and compact knowledge-base state.' This clearly conveys what the tool does and hints at a distinctive scope (including KB state). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like chat_get_session_resume_context, which may overlap in purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as chat_poll_messages or chat_get_session_resume_context. The only hint is an example call, but no explicit context on when this tool is appropriate or how it differs from other chat-context tools. This leaves the agent to infer usage.

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