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 behavioral disclosure. 'Cached' implies the tool works from a cache rather than live data, which is a meaningful constraint, but the description doesn't explain radius semantics, date boundaries (since/until), or what happens when no cached messages exist near the cited message.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. Appropriately short given the modest purpose, though it may be so terse that it under-specifies.

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?

This is a retrieval tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage. The description fails to explain parameter interactions (radius vs. since/until), whether 'cached' means data may be stale, or what the returned structure looks like. For a fetch operation with this many parameters, significantly more documentation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'Nearby' hints at the radius parameter, but the description explains none of the 5 parameters. 'Nearby', 'radius', and since/until date bounds all remain ambiguous in meaning and interaction.

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 specific verb+resource ('Return nearby cached messages around a cited message'), which clearly conveys the tool's function. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like search_messages or expand_cited_sources, though the 'cached messages' framing provides some differentiation.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description doesn't explain when to choose this over search_messages or retrieve_evidence, and doesn't mention any prerequisites or context for invocation.

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