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 of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states the action without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, potential side effects, limits on thread depth, or what constitutes 'context'. The 'get' verb implies a read operation, but no further behavioral details are disclosed.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose without redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation, and every word earns its place.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal to provide complete context. It fails to explain return values, how the optional parameters (includeThread, includeReplies) affect the result, or any edge cases. The tool has 2 required and 2 optional parameters, so more detail is needed.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions (coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to since the schema is already self-explanatory.

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 clear action ('Get detailed context') and resource ('a message'), and explicitly mentions 'reply chain and thread', which distinguishes it from siblings like get_messages and search_messages. However, 'detailed context' is somewhat vague, leaving ambiguity about the full scope of what is returned.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_messages or search_messages. The description lacks explicit context for choosing this tool, making it unclear when this is the appropriate choice.

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