aiworkhub_manager_context_graph_range

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

readOnlyHint=true is already in annotations, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value beyond that by declaring the access tier ('MANAGER READ') and that the result is an exact, bounded window rather than a heuristically ranked set. It does not say what happens at thread boundaries or when the anchor event is missing, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the access tier first and the operation second; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too compressed for a four-parameter tool, but as a conciseness/structure measure it is clean.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described, and annotations cover read-only safety. The remaining gap is parameter semantics: with 0% schema coverage, an agent still cannot tell what units before/after take, what the defaults mean, or how the range is clamped, so the definition is only minimally sufficient.

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 all four parameters carry only titles; the description does establish the roles of around_event_id (the anchor) and before/after (the bound) and thread_id (the transcript scope). It still omits that before/after are counts defaulting to 5, and whether they are event counts or something else, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 (retrieve) and resource (bounded transcript range around one event), which distinguishes it functionally from the search/related/event_write siblings. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, but 'exact bounded ... around one event' is precise enough to tell it apart from a fuzzy search or a graph rebuild.

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?

'MANAGER READ' and 'around one event' imply the context (manager-scoped inspection anchored on a known event id), so a reader can infer when to reach for it. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer context_graph_search or context_graph_related instead, and no stated prerequisites beyond the manager gate.

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