message_getReactions

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

There are no annotations, and the description gives no behavioral details: no output format, error conditions, side effects, permission requirements, or rate limits. The phrase 'Get the reactions associated' is too vague to inform the agent of expected 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 extremely short with no unnecessary words, earning high marks for conciseness. However, it is a fragment that ends with 'associated', which slightly impairs clarity and structure.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only a fragmented description, the tool context is incomplete. The agent has to infer return values and behavior from the name and parameters, which is insufficient for a confident invocation.

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 covers all three parameters with clear descriptions and examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-related meaning, relying entirely on the schema.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('reactions'), with a [Message] prefix indicating the message context. It distinguishes from siblings like message_react and message_getInfo, though the phrase 'associated' is incomplete and leaves 'with what?' implicit.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and sibling structure.

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