discord_get_reactions

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('List users'), which is correct for a getter. However, it lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or what happens when no reactions exist. With no annotations, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return format, error cases, or parameter usage. For a list operation, more completeness is expected (e.g., returns an array of user objects).

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 provides no explanations for parameters like 'emoji' (how to format?), 'limit' (what are edge cases?), or 'channelId'/'messageId'. Parameter names are somewhat intuitive but the description adds no semantic 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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('users who reacted'), and the condition ('with an emoji'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like discord_add_reaction and discord_remove_reaction, which add or remove 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like discord_get_poll_voters (for polls) or discord_remove_user_reaction (removing specific user reaction) exist, but the description offers no context for choosing this tool.

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