get_message_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing behavioral — no mention of the default context window (5), the allowed range, or what happens at discussion boundaries.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the core concept (message + surroundings) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though notably under-specified rather than tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a four-parameter read tool with 25% schema coverage, the description leaves account/chat semantics and sibling differentiation unexplained.

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 25%: just "around" is documented. The description doesn't clarify chat, account, or message_id semantics, so for three of four parameters an agent gets no meaning beyond the raw 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 conveys a specific resource — a message plus its surrounding messages in a discussion — which is distinct from list_messages or get_chat. It lacks an explicit verb and doesn't name a sibling it should not be confused with, but the scope is decipherable.

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?

"par exemple après une recherche" gives one implied context (following a search), which suggests usage but names no alternative tool or exclusion. There is no guidance on when not to use it versus list_messages or search_messages.

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