get_reactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds context that the output is raw and requires immediate processing to be useful, implying it is a data retrieval step rather than a final action. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first states the purpose, and the second provides a critical workflow instruction. Every word is necessary; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 provides the essential purpose and a critical follow-up action. However, it does not mention the output format, any limitations (e.g., maximum number of node IDs), error handling, or performance considerations. Given the low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but could be more thorough.

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 100% for the single parameter 'nodeIds', which is described as an array of node IDs. The tool description adds no further semantics or details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 provides a clear verb+resource: 'Get Figma Prototyping Reactions from multiple nodes.' It specifies the action and the entity being retrieved, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_annotations that also retrieve data for multiple nodes.

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 includes explicit post-processing instructions: the output must be processed using a specific prompt for generating connector parameters via create_connections. This guides the agent on the necessary workflow, but it does not state when to avoid using this tool or mention alternatives.

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