reactions_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it does not mention that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the 'full response' entails in terms of side effects or data volume. The description is critically insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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: the first states the purpose, and the second gives a key parameter tip. There is no wasted text, and the information is front-loaded. This is an optimal structure for quickly conveying the core function.

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 an output schema and well-documented parameters, the tool description lacks contextual completeness. It does not explain pagination behavior, default user filtering, org-wide token requirements (team_id), or the overall response structure. For a tool with 8 parameters and moderate complexity, the description is too sparse to fully inform an agent of the tool's capabilities and constraints.

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% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters. The tool description adds minimal value by explicitly mentioning the 'detailed' parameter and its effect. Given the high baseline from schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not provide significant additional semantic meaning beyond what is already in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List reactions made by a user.' This clearly identifies the operation as listing, distinguishing it from sibling tools like reactions_add (add), reactions_remove (remove), and reactions_get (get specific reaction). It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 only provides a tip about the detailed parameter but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reactions_get or other list tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions for using pagination or the user parameter. The lack of explicit usage instructions weakens this dimension.

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