chat_list_reactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states 'List reactions', but does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, auth requirements, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond the input schema.

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, focused sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the response contains (e.g., list of reaction objects). It does not mention pagination despite having pageToken and maxResults parameters. The description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters and no output schema, leaving the agent guessing about return values and pagination behavior.

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 all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the field names and schema descriptions. A score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 'List' and the resource 'reactions on a Google Chat message'. It is concise and directly indicates the tool's function, distinguishing it from sibling tools that add or remove reactions.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implicitly suggests usage for listing reactions, but lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisite information (e.g., requiring a messageName). Among siblings, it is the only list tool, so confusion is low, but clarity on pagination and required context is missing.

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