reactions_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention pagination (cursor, limit, page), authentication needs, rate limits, or the nature of the response, leaving significant gaps despite the presence of parameters that imply paging.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains zero waste. Every word 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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description is too sparse to be complete. It lacks explanations for pagination, filtering, or the meaning of 'detailed', leaving an agent uncertain how to use the tool effectively with its many parameters.

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 8 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions 'detailed' without explaining its effect or describing other critical parameters like count, cursor, user, or team_id. It adds minimal value beyond the schema itself.

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 reactions by a user. The verb 'list' and resource 'reactions' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like 'reactions_add' or 'reactions_get'.

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 only a single usage hint ('Set detailed=True for full response') but does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reactions_get', nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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