react_to_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not indicate whether reactions can be changed or removed, whether there are rate limits, whether authentication is required beyond the implied post_id, or what the response contains. Only the core action is described.

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?

A single, clear sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the essential action and the available reaction types.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits when to use it, behavioral traits (like idempotency or changeability), and expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters (post_id and type with enum). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules. Baseline 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?

Clearly states a specific verb (react) and resource (CoderLegion post) with the allowed reaction types (like/love), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like add_comment, but the verb 'react' is distinct enough to not be confused.

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 such as add_comment or edit_post. It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., whether the post must exist, whether the user can react to their own post) or any constraints.

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