discord_get_reactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description repeats 'Read-only' and mentions the return shape. It does not add deeper behavioral context such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens when no users have reacted, though the annotations and output schema cover the safety and return aspects.

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 with no wasted words; the main purpose is front-loaded and the additional read-only note is brief.

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 list tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. No important behavioral or invocation detail is missing.

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 all four parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high schema 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 uses a specific verb ('List') tied to a clear resource (users who reacted to a message with a specific emoji). It also distinguishes itself from reaction-mutating siblings like discord_add_reaction and discord_remove_reactions by emphasizing a read-only listing operation.

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?

It gives a clear context of when to call this tool: to inspect which users reacted to a message with a given emoji. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the read-only framing implicitly rules out mutation tools.

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