get_reactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds one behavioral trait (output must be processed immediately), but lacks information on side effects, destruction, auth needs, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The mandatory processing step is useful but not sufficient.

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 sentences: one for purpose, one for critical workflow instruction. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 no output schema, the description hints at processing but does not describe the return format, max nodes, or constraints. The pipeline note partially compensates, but the agent is left guessing about the raw output structure.

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 covers 100% with a description for nodeIds. The tool description reinforces 'multiple nodes' but adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Figma Prototyping Reactions' with the scope 'from multiple nodes', making it distinct from sibling 'get_*' tools that target other entities like annotations or styles.

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 a direct usage workflow: the output must be processed with 'reaction_to_connector_strategy' then used with 'create_connections'. This tells the agent exactly when and how to use the tool, though it does not explicitly exclude alternative uses.

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