get_message_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. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the before/after defaults hint at the bounded window behavior, which is useful. It doesn't state what happens for an unknown message_id, ordering of returned messages, or any limits on before/after values.

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?

A single front-loaded summary sentence followed by a compact Args list; every line adds information (including defaults and the conditional chat_jid rule) with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't needed, and all four parameters are documented with defaults and conditionality. The only gaps are edge-case behavior (unknown/missing message, window ordering) for a tool whose read-only nature is only implied.

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 supply all parameter meaning — and it does, explaining message_id, the before/after counts with their default of 5, and the conditional requirement on chat_jid. It doesn't specify valid ranges for before/after, which would be the final increment.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get context around a specific WhatsApp message', which is clearly a windowed read around one message. This is distinguishable from sibling list_messages by the 'around a specific message' framing, though the description doesn't name the sibling as an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource ('context around a message'), and the chat_jid arg note gives a conditional usage hint ('required when its ID occurs in multiple chats'). However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this vs list_messages guidance and no stated preconditions for resolving a message_id.

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