get_message_reactions

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 discloses the purpose and parameters but does not detail behavior such as pagination, return format, or error handling. The existence of an output schema mitigates this somewhat, but the description itself is limited.

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 Chinese sentence followed by a bulleted parameter list. It is concise, front-loaded with the main function, and contains no unnecessary words. Every element adds value.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and parameter semantics adequately. It references pagination via the limit parameter. However, it does not explain the output structure (beyond 'who reacted with what'), and no error conditions are mentioned. The presence of an output schema (not shown) might fill gaps, but the description alone is slightly incomplete.

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%, and the description adds meaningful explanations for all parameters: 'chat' (对话), 'message_id' (消息ID), 'limit' (最多100条), and 'emoji' (只看某一种表情，留空为全部). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves details of emoji reactions for a specific message ('看一条消息的表情回应明细：谁点了什么。'). It uses a specific verb ('看' meaning view) and resource ('表情回应明细' meaning emoji reaction details), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'send_reaction'.

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 does not explicitly provide when or when not to use this tool. However, given the sibling tools, there is no alternative for viewing reactions, so usage is implied. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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