get_reactions

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the transparency burden. It adds a key behavioral trait—the mandatory downstream processing step—and 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose return format, error behavior, rate limits, or any side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a critical follow-up instruction. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 is simple (one required parameter) and the description gives both the purpose and a mandatory downstream workflow. It lacks an output schema or explicit return-value description, but the critical processing reference compensates for this simple getter.

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 input schema already documents nodeIds as an array of strings with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond restating the multi-node aspect. The baseline 3 applies because the schema fully captures the parameter meaning.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('Figma Prototyping Reactions') and scope ('from multiple nodes'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_node_info or get_document_info. The purpose is immediately clear and specific to 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?

It explicitly instructs that the output must be immediately processed via the 'reaction_to_connector_strategy' prompt and then used by 'create_connections', providing strong contextual guidance. It does not mention alternative tools or scenarios where it should not be used, so it misses full exclusion guidance.

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