get_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get all tasks', without mentioning pagination behavior, default parameter values (e.g., archived, subtasks), or any potential side effects. The phrase 'all tasks' could mislead an agent into thinking archived tasks are always included, when the schema indicates they require the 'archived' parameter.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core operation ('Get all tasks from a ClickUp list'). It has no unnecessary words and is easy to parse, making it highly concise.

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 complex (18 parameters, no output schema), yet the description is minimal. It omits critical operational details such as pagination, default ordering, and how to handle archived or subtask inclusion. An agent would need to infer these from parameter names, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.

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 adds a high-level overview of filter options (status, assignee, tags, dates) but does not provide any additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already documents. It is useful but not compensating for any missing parameter info.

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 function: 'Get all tasks from a ClickUp list'. It specifies the verb (get), the resource (tasks), and the scope (a specific list), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_task (single task) and get_team_tasks (team-level tasks). The mention of 'optional filtering' further clarifies its purpose.

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 use case: retrieving tasks from a specific list. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like get_task or get_team_tasks, nor does it state exclusions such as archived tasks being omitted by default. The guidance is clear but not explicit.

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