slack_list_reactions

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

The description discloses pagination behavior (count/page) and the 'full' flag to return complete reaction list, and states that it returns reaction items with pagination info. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly confirm read-only nature or mention permissions/rate limits, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 short and well-structured: a one-line purpose, parameter details, and returns. No fluff, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 list operation with all optional parameters, the description covers parameters and return info, and an output schema exists so return structure need not be detailed. It lacks mention of error conditions or authentication, but these are minor for this tool type.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: user_id, count, page, and full, including defaults and the effect of full. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though 'complete reaction list' could be more explicit about pagination behavior.

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 states 'List reactions made by a user' — a clear verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like slack_get_reactions (likely message-specific) and slack_list_stars, though it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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. It does not mention context, exclusions, or selection criteria relative to slack_get_reactions or other siblings, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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