get_profile_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 of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the tool's purpose without revealing any behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of detail is inadequate.

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, clear sentence: 'Find out what posts a profile reacted to.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has no unnecessary words, and efficiently communicates the tool's function without any waste. This makes it highly concise and well-structured.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It only states the tool's purpose without addressing behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful to an AI agent.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to describe. According to the rules, for 0 parameters, the baseline score is 4, as the description does not need to compensate for missing schema details.

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's purpose: 'Find out what posts a profile reacted to.' It specifies the action ('find out') and the target resource ('posts a profile reacted to'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'get_post_reactions' or 'get_profile_recent_activity_time,' which might have overlapping or related functionalities.

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 prerequisites, context for usage, or exclusions. Given the presence of sibling tools such as 'get_post_reactions' and 'get_profile_recent_activity_time,' which could potentially serve similar purposes, the lack of differentiation or explicit usage instructions is a significant gap.

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