get_teams

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read-only operation ('Get all'), requires user authentication ('the authenticated user has access to'), and explains the return value ('Returns team IDs'). It does not mention potential limitations like rate limits or pagination, but for a zero-parameter list endpoint, it covers the essential behavior well.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds valuable context about the importance of the return value. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, who can use it, what it returns, and why it's needed. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly within the broader API context.

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 the description adds no parameter-specific details. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description compensates by explaining the return value (team IDs) and why it matters for other API calls, which is more useful than parameter documentation in this case.

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 action ('Get all teams'), the resource ('workspaces in ClickUp'), and the scope ('the authenticated user has access to'). It also distinguishes itself from the singular 'get_team' sibling by emphasizing 'all teams' and specifying the return of team IDs, which directly supports the primary use case.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need team IDs for most other API calls. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'get_team', but the 'all teams' phrasing and the mention of getting IDs imply this is the starting point for accessing workspaces. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the usage context is strong.

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