List Reactions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that reactions are retrieved from the specified nodes and their descendants, which is not inferable from the annotations or schema.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It efficiently conveys the action, resource, and scope in one breath.

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 simple read-only list operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: it names the resource, the traversal behavior, and the input nodes. No further details are needed given the schema and annotations.

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 schema describes nodeIds as 'Array of node IDs to get reactions from,' but the description enriches this by explaining that descendants are included. This clarifies the traversal scope beyond the schema's bare parameter description.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' with the resource 'prototype reactions' and the scope 'from one or more nodes and their descendants.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like reaction_update (write) and other list tools for different resources.

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 clearly conveys the intended use case (reading reactions from nodes and descendants) without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. The context is unambiguous for a read-only listing tool, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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