appflowy_get_published_reactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states it lists reactions, a read operation, without disclosing side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or response format. Minimal transparency beyond the obvious.

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?

Single sentence of 10 words, efficient and to the point. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple list tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on response structure, limits, or that the view must be published. Could be more complete.

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 description adds meaning to comment_id ('optionally filtered to one comment'), but view_id is left unexplained. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but does not fully describe both parameters.

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 it lists reactions on a published view, with optional filtering by comment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like appflowy_get_published_comments (comments) and appflowy_add_published_reaction (adding).

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 mentions optional filtering, implying usage scenarios, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_comments vs reactions) or any prerequisites like requiring a published view.

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