get_recent_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: it specifies that messages are 'buffered (backfill + real-time) without compression,' images are returned as 'URL strings,' and there's a default limit. However, it doesn't cover aspects like error handling, permissions needed for monitored groups, or rate limits, which are gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 well-structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, then details return behavior, usage note, image handling, and parameter explanations in a bullet-like format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a decent job but has gaps. It explains parameters and key behaviors (uncompressed messages, image URLs), but lacks details on output structure (e.g., message format, error responses) and doesn't fully address complexity like authentication or monitoring requirements. It's adequate but incomplete for a tool with rich context needs.

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 semantics for all three parameters: 'target' is explained as 'Group ID or friend QQ ID,' 'target_type' as '"group" (default) or "private,"' and 'limit' as 'Number of recent messages to return (default 200).' This provides clear context beyond the bare schema, though it could elaborate on format constraints (e.g., ID formats).

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's purpose: 'Get recent message context for a monitored group or whitelisted friend.' It specifies the resource (message context) and scope (monitored group/whitelisted friend). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'batch_get_recent_context' or 'compress_context' beyond mentioning the latter.

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 provides some usage guidance: it mentions using 'compress_context to manually compress when needed,' which implies this tool returns uncompressed data. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'batch_get_recent_context' or when to prefer it over other context-related tools, leaving usage context somewhat implied.

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