clickup_chat_reaction_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior as a read-only listing operation (implied by 'List') and describes the output format (array of reaction summary objects with emoji, count, users). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error conditions, which are important for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, grouping method, and return format. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool's low complexity (simple listing with 2 parameters), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context by explaining the output structure. However, without annotations, it could benefit from mentioning behavioral aspects like read-only nature or any limitations, though the concise purpose and parameter clarity mostly compensate.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (message_id and team_id). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 specific action ('List the emoji reactions'), target resource ('on a ClickUp Chat message'), and output format ('grouped by emoji — each entry includes the emoji, count, and the users who reacted with it'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like clickup_chat_reaction_add and clickup_chat_reaction_remove by focusing on listing rather than modifying reactions.

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 implies usage context (when you need to see reaction summaries on a message) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, limitations, or comparisons with other listing tools like clickup_chat_message_list, though the input schema hints at relationships.

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