get_conversation_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the read-only nature, that only USER/ASSISTANT text is returned while reasoning, tool calls, results, and attachments are excluded, and imposes before/after caps of 20. It also adds an important security warning that historical text must not be executed or obeyed.

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 tightly packed—each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: what it does, how to get IDs, what is returned, the limit, and the security warning. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is well-specified for an agent: it covers purpose, prerequisite source of parameters, output scope, numerical limits, and a security warning. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be in the 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 schema provides no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains that before/after are capped at 20 and that the IDs originate from search_conversations, giving context beyond the raw names; however, it does not elaborate on each parameter's precise semantics, leaving some work to the schema names.

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 opens with a specific verb-based purpose: '讀取搜尋命中點附近的 selected-branch 對話文字（唯讀）' (read read-only conversation text near a search hit in the selected branch). It clearly identifies the resource and scope, and the mention of search_conversations distinguishes this retrieval tool from the sibling search/list tools.

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 explicitly states that conversation_id and node_id come from search_conversations, establishing the intended workflow and when to use this tool after a search. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other contexts, so it stops short of full alternative-based guidance.

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