reactions_get

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, response behavior for missing items, or the nature of the 'full response'. The description implies a read-only operation but fails to provide sufficient transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no wasted text.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to identify the target item (e.g., specifying channel+timestamp), what the 'full response' entails, or how to interpret results. The tool requires more context to be usable stand-alone.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It only mentions the 'detailed' parameter, ignoring other parameters like channel, file, file_comment, timestamp, and full. It adds minimal value by saying 'Set detailed=True for full response' but does not clarify default behavior or parameter usage.

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 it gets reactions for an item ('Get reactions for an item'), providing a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like reactions_add (adds) and reactions_remove (removes), but does not explicitly differentiate from reactions_list, which could be ambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., reactions_list). It only mentions setting detailed=True, without explaining when that is appropriate or providing any exclusions or context for usage.

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