reactions_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'get reactions' implying a read operation, but does not confirm idempotency, conditional parameter requirements (e.g., channel+timestamp for a message), or what happens if conflicting identifiers are provided. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 concise sentences with no superfluous words. The key instruction (detailed parameter) is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 rich schema descriptions and an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks contextual guidance on usage scenarios (e.g., getting reactions for a message vs. file) and how to choose parameters. The sibling tools hint at broader functionality, but the description does not address when to use this tool over reactions_list.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by highlighting the detailed parameter with 'Set detailed=True for full response,' which is slightly more actionable than the schema's own description. It does not clarify other parameters or their interplay.

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 the specific verb 'Get reactions for an item,' which clearly indicates the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like reactions_add and reactions_remove, but could be more precise about what constitutes an item (message, file, etc.). The schema details item types, but the description itself is somewhat vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like reactions_list or reactions_remove. It only mentions the detailed parameter, not when to provide channel/timestamp versus file, or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent without strategic direction.

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