get_reactions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral requirement that the output must be post-processed, which adds useful beyond-schema context. However, it does not describe the output format, potential errors, or other behaviors, so it's only moderately transparent.

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 two sentences: the first states purpose, the second delivers a critical instruction. No filler words, front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the essential workflow step (post-processing to generate connectors). It does not explain the return value structure, but the critical instruction provides enough context for an agent to proceed. This is slightly above average given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'nodeIds', and the description already provides a brief meaning ('Array of node IDs'). The description adds no further detail about how nodeIds affect the result, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('Figma Prototyping Reactions') with a specific scope ('from multiple nodes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_node_info or get_annotations, which target different types of data.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool: its output must be processed using the 'reaction_to_connector_strategy' prompt and fed into 'create_connections'. It doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives, but it establishes a concrete workflow, which is strong usage guidance.

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