List Comment Reactions

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds value by disclosing the return shape (emoji or text content, authors, timestamps) — notably that reactions can be text, not just emoji. No contradiction exists; the 'Get' phrasing aligns with the read-only annotation.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler: the first states the operation, the second specifies the output, and the third gives the use case. The core action is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only list tool, the combination of annotations (safety profile), 100% schema coverage (all three parameters documented), and a description that discloses return contents to compensate for the absent output schema is nearly complete. Only minor details like response ordering or pagination go undisclosed.

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%, with each parameter (account_slug, card_number, comment_id) already documented with format examples and provenance hints. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing ('Get all emoji reactions on a comment') and names the return contents (reaction content, authors, timestamps), which clearly distinguishes it from reaction-mutation siblings like fizzy_add_reaction and fizzy_remove_reaction, and from comment-listing tools like fizzy_get_card_comments.

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?

'Use this to see how team members respond to comments' provides a clear, actionable context for when the tool applies. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives, but since it is the only reaction-list tool among siblings and the read/write counterparts are obvious, the guidance is sufficient.

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