get_context

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful access/breadth context via the server access policy and the bounded parent-reply chain, but it does not clarify ordering, pagination behavior, or edge cases.

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?

Three short sentences, with the core purpose and alternative front-loaded. Every sentence adds value and there is no wasted 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 description covers the high-level return composition (message, neighbors, parent replies) and sibling routing, which is useful given there is no output schema. However, for a 4-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, it omits how to supply ref and how after, before, and reply_depth affect the result.

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 description only alludes to the message ref, chronological neighbors, and bounded reply depth; it never names after, before, or reply_depth, nor explains accepted ref formats or the meaning of the bounds. With 0% schema description coverage, this leaves most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 and resource set: read a message, its chronological neighbors, and a bounded chain of parent replies. It also distinguishes this from get_thread, so an agent can tell they are different tools without opening either schema.

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?

It explicitly frames the tool as temporal context and names get_thread as the correct alternative for all comments/replies in a discussion. That gives a clear when-to-use-this versus when-to-use-another signal.

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