list_teams

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by explaining the return behavior: 'Returns the configured CLICKUP_TEAM_LABELS mapping, or an empty object if not configured.' It also adds the lowercase naming requirement. No contradiction with 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 three sentences, the first sentence states the core purpose, and the subsequent sentences add essential context without waffle. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is complete: it names the output, explains the source (CLICKUP_TEAM_LABELS mapping), handles the unconfigured case, and gives practical usage guidance. No gaps remain.

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 tool has zero parameters, so by rubric baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on output rather than input. No parameter documentation needed.

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 tool's purpose: 'List available Component/Team labels and their IDs.' This is a specific verb (List) and resource (labels/IDs), and it differentiates from siblings by immediately connecting to task creation/update usage.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use team names (lowercase) when creating or updating tasks with a team parameter.' This tells the user when the output is needed. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear.

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