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. It explains what is returned (window before/after, all replies), which conveys behavioral scope, but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a read tool with no annotations, this is minimal.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and ends with the scope. No wasted words.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values. However, it lacks usage context (when to use vs siblings) and full parameter semantics. It is adequate but incomplete for an agent to select and invoke correctly without checking other tools.

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 mentions 'window messages before/after', implying the window parameter controls the number of messages, but does not specify that it's an integer count or its default (10). The message_id is clearly required. The description adds some meaning but leaves the window parameter semantics underspecified.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (context around a message), and clarifies the scope: window messages before/after plus all replies. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sync or list_chats.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or get_stats. The description implies usage (to get context around a message) but provides no explicit when/when-not criteria or prerequisites.

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