task_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that this is a safe read operation. It adds valuable behavioral context by specifying accepted ID formats (custom like DEV-1234 or UUID), which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 succinct and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose, and the Args block adds parameter details without redundancy. Every element earns its place, and there is no unnecessary prose.

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 with one parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema. The description fully covers the input semantics and the tool's action. There is no missing context needed for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 has a single task_id parameter with no description (schema description coverage 0%). The description compensates fully by explaining the parameter: 'task_id: Task ID (custom like DEV-1234 or UUID).' This provides clear meaning beyond the schema's bare string type.

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: 'Get the ClickUp URL for a task.' It is specific about the action (getting a URL) and resource (task), and the mention of custom IDs vs UUIDs adds useful distinctiveness from sibling tools like get_task.

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 the tool is used when a task URL is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like get_task or search_tasks. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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