message_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states what is returned (one message with surrounding context) but does not mention whether it's a read-only operation, how many messages are returned, pagination, or any potential side effects. This is insufficient for a read tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single concise sentence, which is efficient, but it packs too little information. It's not verbose, but it could include key details like parameter semantics without becoming lengthy. It's under-specified rather than well-structured.

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?

While an output schema exists (unseen), the description does not explain the return format or how the output relates to the inputs. It lacks essential context for a tool with 4 parameters and 0% schema coverage, leaving the agent without enough information to call it correctly.

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 explain the parameters. It fails to mention chat_id and msg_id as required identifiers, or that 'before' and 'after' control the number of surrounding messages. The agent would have to guess parameter meanings from names alone, which is inadequate.

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 the tool's purpose clearly: it returns one message with its surrounding messages, reply chain, and album. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_messages or search_messages, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'returns' is implied, and the resource is a message context.

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. It doesn't mention scenarios like 'use this to see a message thread' or exclude cases where get_messages would be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the name and description.

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