telegram-get-reactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying that it returns who reacted 'when visible', indicating privacy constraints. No contradiction, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and details. Every word serves a purpose, achieving maximum conciseness without losing clarity.

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 has no output schema, the description adequately explains the output (reactions, counts, who reacted with visibility note). It covers the key aspects for a simple read tool with two well-documented parameters. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or limit, but unlikely for a single-message query.

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% with descriptions for chatId and messageId. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'reaction info for a message', listing specifics (reactions, counts, who reacted when visible). It distinguishes from siblings like `telegram-get-recent-reactions` or `telegram-get-top-reactions` by focusing on a single message's detailed info.

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 for detailed reaction info on a specific message but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like `telegram-get-recent-reactions`. No prerequisites or context for exclusion are provided.

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