github_reactions_list_for_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, that pagination is supported via per_page and page parameters, or what the response format looks like. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 concise with one sentence and zero waste. However, it is slightly under-specified for a tool with pagination and filtering options. It earns its place but could include a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 tool has pagination, optional content filtering, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks mention of pagination, default behavior (list all reactions if content omitted), and any hint about the response structure. The schema covers parameters but the description fails to provide a complete picture.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The content parameter already has a detailed description in the schema, so the description is adequate but not enhanced.

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 'List reactions for an issue' clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'reactions for an issue'. It is specific to issues and distinguishes from sibling reactions tools for commit comments, issue comments, pull request review comments, and releases.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to other reaction list tools. While the context implies it is for issues, it does not mention alternatives or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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