get_reactions

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It informs that the output requires immediate processing, implying it is not a final result, but does not mention read-only behavior, authentication needs, or any side effects. The workflow context is helpful but incomplete.

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 only two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second sentence provides a critical workflow alert. No unnecessary words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description should clarify the return format or structure. It only says the output must be processed, leaving ambiguity. The relationship with sibling tools is partly addressed via the workflow hint, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. The description essentially repeats 'Array of node IDs to get reactions from', which is already in the input schema. No additional semantic detail is provided.

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 gets Figma Prototyping Reactions from multiple nodes. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from siblings like update_reactions, though it does not differentiate from other retrieval tools like get_annotations or get_nodes_info.

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 critical post-processing instructions, guiding the agent to use reaction_to_connector_strategy and then create_connections. However, it lacks guidance on when to use get_reactions versus alternative tools, such as update_reactions, 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.