Get Workspace Hierarchy

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

Annotations already declare it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the 'accessible' qualifier and the hierarchy types, but it does not disclose behaviors like refresh semantics, include_archived default behavior, or pagination. This is minimal value beyond annotations.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient for its purpose.

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 the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits parameter semantics, return value expectations, and usage guidance, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (refresh, workspace_id, include_archived). An agent cannot infer what these parameters do from the description or schema, so the description fails to compensate.

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 clearly defines the resource ('accessible Spaces, Folders, and Lists in a ClickUp Workspace'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_folder or get_list by referring to the full hierarchy scope.

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 this is for retrieving the full workspace hierarchy, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search_workspace or get_folder. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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