get_task_templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only operation via 'Get', which is the primary safety trait. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, even though the schema includes a 'page' parameter, and the phrase 'all task templates' could be misleading if pagination is required. This is a notable gap but not a severe one given the read-only nature.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or extraneous content.

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 list tool with two parameters and no output schema, this description is mostly complete. It states the resource and scope, and the schema fully documents parameters. The only gap is the implicit pagination behavior, which is a minor omission given that the 'page' parameter is visible in the schema.

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%, with both 'team_id' and 'page' described in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level details beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 applies. No compensation 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all task templates') with a clear scope ('in a ClickUp team/workspace'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_task_from_template or delete_task_template. It clearly identifies both the action and the target resource.

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 when to use the tool: when you need to retrieve all task templates for a workspace. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the resource-specific language makes the context clear enough without needing to name sibling tools.

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