send_reaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Send Reaction' only states the basic action without explaining what a reaction is, whether it modifies existing messages, any side effects, or required permissions. There is no mention of how the tool operates beyond the name, giving the agent essentially no insight into its 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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is a single phrase that lacks necessary details to be useful, and it does not earn its place by providing substantive information. It is not a well-structured or sufficiently informative description.

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?

For a tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fails to provide any meaningful context. It does not explain what a reaction is, how it is sent, or what the parameters do. The description is completely inadequate for the tool's complexity, leaving the agent without the information needed to use it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter details in the description, the agent is left with no understanding of 'body', 'phone', or 'quotedMsgId'. The description 'Send Reaction' does not compensate or clarify what each parameter means or how they relate to the action. It adds no semantic value over the bare parameter 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 'Send Reaction' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'send_reaction'. It identifies the action (send) and object (reaction) but adds no specificity that distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_message or send_sticker. This qualifies as a tautology rather than a clear, informative purpose statement.

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. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The verb 'send' implies a generic usage, but there is no explicit or implicit direction about appropriate scenarios compared to the many other send_* tools.

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