List Reactions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description confirms read-only behavior ('Read') and adds a specific processing step, which goes beyond the annotations by describing a required post-processing action.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core function, the second gives critical usage guidance. No extraneous 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter; the description covers purpose and output usage. Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but noted), it is sufficiently complete for the agent to understand the tool's role.

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% and the schema already describes 'nodeIds' as an array of node IDs. The description adds 'one or more nodes' which is a slight nuance but does not significantly enhance the semantic understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Read prototype reactions from one or more nodes', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling 'reaction_update' which implies mutation.

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 explains how to use the output: 'Process the output with the reaction_to_connector_strategy prompt to build create_connection parameters.', providing clear downstream instructions. Although it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, it gives strong usage context.

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