get_chat_message_reactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It describes the tool as a read operation ('list') and mentions pagination, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., message not found). This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single sentence with a parenthetical about pagination, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate the pagination note into a clear sentence). It earns its space without waste.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides the core output (who reacted and which emoji) and pagination details. It does not explain the reaction structure, expected response format, or behavior when no reactions exist. This is minimally complete but leaves gaps for an agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters (team_id, message_id, cursor, limit) are already documented. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only reiterating pagination via cursor/limit. 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists emoji reactions on a Chat message, specifying the output includes who reacted and which emoji. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_chat_messages (lists messages) or create_chat_message_reaction (adds reactions).

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 mentions pagination via cursor/limit, which is useful, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_chat_messages for message content or create_chat_message_reaction for adding reactions). The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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