get_reactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states 'Get' which implies read-only, but does not disclose potential limitations, authentication requirements, or return format. The critical transform requirement adds useful behavioral context, but overall detail is sparse for a tool with no annotation support.

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: the first states purpose, the second delivers a critical workflow instruction. No filler, front-loaded, and 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?

For a read tool feeding an external pipeline, the description supplies the vital next step (processing with 'reaction_to_connector_strategy') and its destination ('create_connections'). However, without an output schema or return description, the raw reaction format is undocumented. The critical instruction compensates, making it reasonably complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with 'nodeIds' described as 'Array of node IDs to get reactions from'. The tool description's 'multiple nodes' adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get Figma Prototyping Reactions from multiple nodes' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_node_info or get_selection by focusing on reactions. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 an explicit, critical instruction: output MUST be processed via 'reaction_to_connector_strategy' to generate parameters for 'create_connections'. This establishes the exact workflow and when the tool should be used. While no alternatives are mentioned, there are no reaction-specific sibling tools, so this is sufficient.

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