get_reactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the return structure but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, permissions, or rate limits. While it provides value by explaining the output format, it does not go beyond the annotation's safety profile.

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 return format, and every sentence adds value. It avoids unnecessary detail and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains the return value structure and the concepts involved. It covers all necessary context without being verbose, making it complete for this tool's complexity.

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 100% for the single nodeId parameter, which already defines it as a Figma node id. The description mentions 'on a node' but does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 tool returns prototype reactions on a node, with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('prototype reactions on a node'). It provides the return shape, which distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like set_reactions and 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?

The description implies usage for reading reactions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention exclusions. The read-only intent is clear from the verb, but there is no direct guidance on when to prefer this over other reaction-related tools.

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