get_user_reactions

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 that the tool fetches data (implied read-only) and mentions pagination via the offset parameter, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what specific data is included in the UserReactions object. The description adds some behavioral context but is incomplete for a tool with no 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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement, parameter details, return value, and usage context in separate sentences. It is front-loaded with the main action. Minor redundancy in parameter descriptions slightly reduces efficiency, but overall it is concise and effective.

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 that there is an output schema (implied by 'Returns a UserReactions object'), the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and usage context adequately. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details like authentication or rate limits to be fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (username and offset) fully. The description repeats the parameter information in the 'Args' section but does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('a user's post reactions'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_user_actions or get_user_summary by focusing specifically on reactions (likes, etc.). The purpose is precise and not a tautology of the tool name.

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 implied usage context ('Use to see what content a user has reacted to, which can indicate their interests and values'), suggesting when this tool might be helpful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_user_actions or get_user_replies, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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