clickup_chat_reaction_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It states the return format (array of reaction summary objects with emoji, count, users) but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential empty results. Minimal disclosure beyond the obvious 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?

Description is a single sentence followed by a short, clear return summary. No redundant information; every word serves a purpose. It is front-loaded with the core action and quickly explains the output structure.

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 no output schema, description provides a high-level summary of return fields (emoji, count, users). However, it lacks details about exact field names, error conditions, or behavior when no reactions exist. Adequate but could be more complete, especially for an agent expecting structured output.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The schema already explains message_id and team_id with references to other tools. The description adds no additional parameter semantics.

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 the tool lists emoji reactions on a ClickUp Chat message, grouped by emoji, including count and users. It specifies the resource (message), verb (list), and output structure, distinguishing it from sibling tools like clickup_chat_reaction_add or clickup_chat_reaction_remove. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 (listing reactions for a chat message) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like clickup_chat_reaction_add or clickup_chat_reaction_remove. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, so the agent must infer from sibling names.

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