get_reactions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavior such as whether 'full' affects the payload, pagination, or ordering; with annotations present a neutral 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single short sentence that immediately communicates the operation with no filler. It could slightly improve by front-loading parameter-relevant behavior, but for its size it is efficient.

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 and has an output schema plus read-only annotations, so the minimal description is mostly adequate. However, the unlabeled 'full' parameter and lack of any usage/routing context leave a clear completeness gap for an agent invoking it correctly.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate, but it explains none of the three parameters. channel_id and message_ts are inferable from names, but 'full' (boolean, default true) has no explanation and is genuinely ambiguous.

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 uses a clear verb and resource ('Get reactions to a message') and is not a tautology. It is readily distinguishable from sibling add_reaction as the read counterpart, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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?

No guidance is given for when to prefer this tool over add_reaction or other reaction-related operations. The intended context is implied by the name, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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