Slack Get Reactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic purpose: it does not mention completeness, pagination, limitations, or how the 'full' option changes results.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though its brevity contributes to gaps in guidance elsewhere.

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 operation with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description provides enough to identify the tool and its target. It need not explain return values, but it could better distinguish itself from sibling reaction-listing tools.

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%, so the input schema already documents channel_id, timestamp, and full. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Get reactions for a specific Slack message.' This clearly identifies the operation, but it does not distinguish the tool from the sibling slack_list_reactions or clarify scope differences.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as slack_list_reactions, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the operation name.

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