get_reactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation via 'Get' and discloses the critical post-processing requirement. However, it doesn't detail return format, error behavior, or side effects, leaving room for ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the tool's purpose, the second provides a critical usage instruction. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value.

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?

With only one parameter, high schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains both what the tool does and the mandatory next step in the workflow. This makes the tool contextually complete for the intended use case, though it could mention input constraints (e.g., valid node IDs).

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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description ('Array of node IDs to get reactions from'). The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond 'multiple nodes', which aligns with the array type. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get Figma Prototyping Reactions from multiple nodes', a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from siblings like get_node_info by focusing on reactions, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit workflow: output must be processed via the 'reaction_to_connector_strategy' prompt then used with 'create_connections'. This tells the agent when/how to use the tool's output, though it doesn't state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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