get_conversation_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that contact names are preferred for direct chats and group titles for groups, which gives a clue about output formatting. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or what the 'context' includes. Critical behavioral information is missing.

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 concise at two sentences, with the first stating the purpose and the second adding a relevant detail (naming preference). The structure is clear and front-loaded, but it could include critical parameter information without becoming overly long.

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 has two parameters, no schema documentation, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the output contains (though an output schema exists, per rules it's not required in description). Parameter semantics and behavioral context are missing, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 input schema has two parameters (chat, limit) with no descriptions (0% schema coverage). The tool description does not explain what 'chat' represents or what 'limit' controls. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter meanings, making correct invocation difficult.

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 'Return recent conversation context for a chat,' which identifies a specific operation and resource. However, 'context' is somewhat vague; it could mean recent messages, participants, or other metadata. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_unread_messages and list_chats, but the exact scope is unclear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_unread_messages, list_chats). It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where it is preferred. The only hint is the naming preference, but that is not about usage context.

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