list_item_reactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Qiita Team only', hinting at access restrictions, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, returns paginated results, or error handling. For a list operation with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes necessary context ('Qiita Team only') without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., list format, emoji types), authentication needs, or error cases. For a tool in a context with many siblings, more guidance on behavior and output would improve completeness.

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 parameter 'item_id' documented as 'Item ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and resource ('emoji reactions on an item'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_item_likes' or 'list_item_comments' by specifying reactions. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'item' refers to (e.g., article, post) or the verb 'emoji reactions' beyond the name, leaving some ambiguity.

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 'Qiita Team only', which provides context on when to use it (for team-specific items). However, it doesn't specify when to choose this over alternatives like 'list_comment_reactions' or clarify if it's for viewing reactions before adding/removing them. Usage is implied but not explicitly guided.

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