get_context_around

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the important caveat that the returned data is untrusted observed data. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't disclose return shape, pagination, or invalid timestamp 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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the trust caveat appended. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has no output schema and a 0% schema coverage, so the description must carry more weight. It omits the semantics of the 'n' parameter and gives only a vague indication of the return type ('activity blocks'), leaving an agent under-informed for a correct call.

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. It clarifies that 'ts' is a Unix timestamp, but 'n' is left unexplained; an agent cannot infer its meaning or bounds from the text.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('activity blocks'), and temporal scope ('before and after a Unix timestamp'). It is clear on what the tool does, though it does not explicitly discuss sibling tools to distinguish from get_recent_activity or get_day_material.

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 implies a timestamp-centric use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over search_screen_history, get_recent_activity, or get_day_material, nor any exclusions. This is adequate but relies on inference.

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