get_reactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It correctly indicates the tool is read-only (no mutation). It does not detail side effects or permissions, but for a simple read operation, this is adequate. No contradictions.

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-loading the action and resource. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary words. It is optimally concise.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides sufficient context: it states the action, resource, and typical use case. It could briefly mention the return format (array of reactions), but not having it does not hinder understanding significantly.

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 has 100% coverage with a description for nodeId. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's description, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reads prototype interactions (reactions) from a node, with a specific verb (read) and resource (interactions from a node). It also distinguishes from the sibling write tool set_reactions by emphasizing read-only purpose.

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 mentions the tool is 'useful for debugging and inspecting existing interactions,' implying when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives (e.g., set_reactions for writing). Guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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