list_comment_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the Qiita Team restriction, which is a useful context, but fails to describe other critical behaviors such as whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like (e.g., list of reactions with emoji and user details), pagination, error handling, or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key constraint without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by adding value.

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 complexity of a list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, output structure, pagination) and does not fully guide usage beyond the Qiita Team note. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to help the agent understand what to expect and how to use it effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'comment_id' documented as 'Comment ID'. The description does not add any further meaning about this parameter (e.g., format examples, where to find it, or validation rules). Since the schema already provides adequate documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates nor detracts from the schema's information.

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 action ('List emoji reactions') and the target resource ('on a comment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling list tools like 'list_item_reactions' or 'list_comment_reactions' (if present elsewhere), which would require mentioning its specific scope or constraints beyond the Qiita Team restriction.

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 includes a usage constraint ('Qiita Team only'), which provides some context, but it does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list tools for reactions or comments). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent without clear decision-making criteria.

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