razz-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Add' implies a write operation, the description fails to disclose idempotency (can the same emoji be added twice?), error handling (what if the messageId is invalid?), side effects (does it trigger notifications?), or rate limits.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. While appropriately structured, it borders on underspecification given the lack of annotations and output schema; an additional sentence covering behavior or constraints would improve utility without sacrificing 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 low complexity (2 primitive parameters) and high schema coverage (100%), the description meets minimum viability. However, for a write operation with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks necessary context about failure modes, duplicate handling, or platform-specific emoji requirements.

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%, with the schema already documenting 'Message ID to react to' and 'Emoji to react with'. The description references these parameters implicitly ('message', 'emoji reaction') but adds no additional semantic value regarding formats, validation rules, or examples beyond the schema definitions.

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 ('Add') and resource ('emoji reaction') operating on a target ('message'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling messaging tools like razz_send_message by specifying 'reaction' rather than sending content, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar interaction tools like razz_tip.

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 (e.g., when to react vs. reply with razz_send_message), no prerequisites (e.g., requiring the message to exist), and no exclusions or error conditions.

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