get_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. While it mentions the tool retrieves context, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, size limits). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage guidelines without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose and usage well but is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and output format, which are necessary for full understanding. The description is adequate as a minimum but has clear gaps in context.

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 for undocumented parameters. It only vaguely references 'a specific search result' (implied to relate to 'chunk_id') and 'before or after a result' (implied to relate to 'direction'), but provides no specifics on parameter meanings, formats, or constraints. This fails to adequately explain the three parameters beyond basic schema hints.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Retrieve more conversation context') and resource ('around a specific search result'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search' (which finds results) or 'list_sessions' (which lists sessions). It explicitly defines the tool's scope as fetching contextual conversation snippets.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use ONLY after calling search, when you need to see what was discussed before or after a result'), including a prerequisite (must call 'search' first) and a clear use-case (viewing surrounding context). It effectively differentiates from alternatives by specifying its post-search role.

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