Get reactions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by describing a read operation. However, the description does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, response format, or permissions. With annotations present, the lack of extra disclosure is acceptable but not outstanding.

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 one short sentence that directly conveys the tool's function without redundant words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

With 5 parameters and no output schema, the single-sentence description covers only the core purpose. It does not describe return values or further behavior, but the schema provides parameter details. For a simple read operation, it is minimally adequate but not complete.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for guild, limit, and channel (60% coverage), but emoji and message_id lack descriptions. The description's phrase 'given emoji' adds minimal meaning to the emoji parameter but does not specify format or usage. Overall, the description adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 ('reacted') with a clear resource ('message') and scope ('given emoji'), clearly distinguishing it from reaction mutation tools like add_reactions or remove_reaction. It states exactly what the tool does.

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 implies a read-only lookup for reactions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_reactions or clear_reactions. No direct exclusion or alternative guidance is provided, leaving only the inferred context.

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