get_reactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds value by stating the result includes who reacted and at what timestamp, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no fluff. Every word is necessary and clear.

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 that an output schema exists, parameters are fully described in schema, and annotations provide safety, the description is mostly complete. It clearly states what is retrieved and what info is included. Minor improvement could mention that it retrieves all reactions, but not critical.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains both parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage details for the parameters.

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 uses specific verb 'get' and resource 'emoji reactions on a Loom video', including the details returned (who reacted and timestamp). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_reaction, delete_reaction, and get_comment_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 implies when to use (to retrieve reactions), but does not explicitly tell when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like get_comment_reactions or get_frequent_reactions. No exclusions or context provided.

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