get_chat_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'show' and 'surrounding,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explain ordering, default counts for before/after, or any other runtime 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 a single concise sentence with no filler. The main action and purpose are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.

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 is simple, but the description leaves out parameter semantics and explicit usage guidance. It is minimally viable for invoking the tool correctly, but an agent would benefit from knowing that before/after control the number of messages on each side and that message_id is the anchor.

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 by explaining parameters. It does not mention message_id, before, or after explicitly. 'Surrounding' hints at the role of before/after, but the description adds little semantic value beyond the schema's property names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('messages surrounding one message') and states a clear purpose ('to expand a search hit'). This differentiates it well from siblings like search_messages and list_messages.

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 phrase 'to expand a search hit' implies the tool is used after a search, but it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is present but only implied.

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