Get Post Reactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds the specific reaction types but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., permission requirements, rate limits, or output structure). No contradiction with annotations.

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 very concise at one sentence plus an args list. It front-loads the action. However, it lacks structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) and could better separate the main action from parameter details.

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 but has no output schema. The description does not explain the return format (e.g., structure of reaction counts). It also omits the response_format parameter entirely, leaving ambiguity for the agent. Annotations provide safety info, but behavioral details are insufficient for a fully autonomous call.

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 50%: the description only mentions post_id and omits the response_format parameter entirely. It does not add meaning beyond the schema for post_id, and fails to explain the response_format parameter's purpose, defaults, or effects. The description falls short given the moderate schema coverage.

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 that the tool retrieves reaction counts (like, love, haha, wow, sad, angry) on a post. It specifies the exact verb and resource, and the listed reaction types distinguish it from sibling tools like meta_get_post or meta_get_post_comments.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or contrast with related tools. Users must infer from the name and description alone.

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