get_reactions

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

The description describes a read-only get operation, but annotations set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, contradicting the described behavior. This inconsistency severely impairs 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?

Two sentences front-load the purpose and then list alternatives. Every word is informative, no redundancy.

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 description covers essential output (array of reaction objects with trigger and actions) and related tools. However, the annotation contradiction undermines completeness, and no output schema or pagination details are provided, but given simplicity, it's minimally adequate.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, including description for nodeId. The tool description adds no extra parameter details beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get the prototype reactions defined on a node', specifying the verb (get) and resource (prototype reactions on a node). It distinguishes from siblings like set_reactions and remove_reactions by naming them explicitly.

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 implies when to use (to retrieve reactions) and mentions alternative tools for adding/replacing (set_reactions) or deleting (remove_reactions). It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' but provides clear context.

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