get_lists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a read-only operation via 'Get' and clarifies the exclusive-or requirement between folder_id and space_id. Yet it does not mention pagination, default filtering (e.g., archived lists excluded by default), or any permissions/rate-limit context. It adds some value but leaves gaps.

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 sentence with two short clauses, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise and every word adds value—no fluff or redundancy.

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 read operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context (folder or space, either/or parameter). It does not explain return structure or pagination, but the 'all lists' phrasing implies the expected result. Overall, it is fairly complete for a straightforward list endpoint, with minor gaps around pagination or default behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description partly repeats the either/or relationship already stated in the schema descriptions (e.g., 'optional if folder_id given'). It adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a 3 is appropriate.

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'), names the resource ('all lists'), and clearly scopes it to a ClickUp folder or space. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_list (singular) and get_folders by specifying the list-of-lists operation and the folder/space context.

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 clearly states the main usage context: getting all lists within a folder or space. It also gives a necessary usage constraint ('Provide either folder_id or space_id'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use get_list for a single list'), so it stops short of full guidance.

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