Get Message Context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description confirms the safe read-only nature with 'Fetch' and 'GET'. It adds context about radius and the required message-id source, but it does not disclose potential edge cases, error behavior, or exclusivity handling if both around ids are supplied.

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?

Two sentences carry the full message with no filler: action/endpoint, parameter usage, and prerequisite source. The most important usage instruction is front-loaded, and every clause adds value.

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?

For a read-only context fetch, the description covers the main invocation needs: choosing one around id, setting radius, and knowing where to obtain a message id. It lacks explicit treatment of responses and default/omitted radius behavior, but the annotations plus endpoint path make the tool callable without missing critical inputs.

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 coverage is only 20%, so the description must compensate; it does explain the key around* parameters ('Provide either aroundStanzaId or aroundMessageId') and radius ('controls how many messages before/after'). However, it does not explain the difference between aroundStanzaId and aroundMessageId or give semantics for chatId beyond its appearance in the endpoint path.

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?

Description opens with a specific action on a specific resource: 'Fetch the messages surrounding a target message' and includes the exact GET path. It also differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly requiring a message id produced by ethora-messages-search-v2 or ethora-chats-history-v2, so an agent can tell it apart from history/search 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 gives clear when-to-use context: provide either aroundStanzaId or aroundMessageId, and set radius for before/after count. It identifies the prerequisite sources for the id, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other chat message tools.

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