get_post_reactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that omitting reaction_type returns all types, and that each item includes a 'type' field, adding meaningful response behavior 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 compact and front-loaded with the action and resource. The second paragraph earns its place by documenting filter values and output behavior without extraneous detail.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential selection and filtering behavior. It lacks explicit pagination semantics for after/limit, but the schema defaults and parameter names provide reasonable guidance.

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%, and the description compensates well for reaction_type by enumerating valid values and explaining omission behavior. However, after and limit are not explained, and post_id is just the required resource identifier. Compensation is partial, not complete.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List reactions on a post with who reacted and how.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_post_comments and get_post_likes by focusing on reactions and the per-reaction type field.

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 intended use is clear: retrieve reactions on a post, optionally filtered by reaction_type. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context makes the appropriate scenario obvious.

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