get_comment_reactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that this is a read-only GET operation returning reactors and reaction types. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, filtering by reaction_type, ordering, or any access requirements. The existing output schema covers return value structure, so this is a partial but not complete disclosure.

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?

A single sentence with the core action, resource, and endpoint front-loaded. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 tool has four parameters, zero annotation coverage, and zero schema description coverage, yet the description is minimal. It omits pagination semantics, the meaning of reaction_type, and guidance on when to use this over sibling reaction/like tools. The output schema fills in return values, but the input-side context is insufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate for four parameters. It only clarifies comment_id through the URL template '/{comment-id}/reactions'. The 'how' phrase vaguely hints at reaction type, but after, limit, and reaction_type are left entirely unexplained.

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 ('List') and a specific resource ('reactions on a comment'), and clarifies the data returned ('who reacted and how'). The endpoint template further reinforces the scope. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_comment_likes or get_post_reactions.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_comment_likes or get_post_reactions. There are no stated exclusions, filter recommendations, or context hints beyond the tool name.

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