get_views

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is helpful, but the description does not disclose whether exactly one ID is required, what happens if multiple IDs are provided, or what structure the returned views take. This is basic but not misleading.

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 that conveys the tool's purpose and scope immediately. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat sparse. It does not clarify that at least one identifier should likely be provided or how to choose among them, and it does not hint at the response format. A short usage note would improve completeness.

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 input schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage. The description merely repeats the same scopes ('team, space, folder, or list') and adds no extra meaning such as parameter exclusivity or precedence, so it adds minimal value over the schema.

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 ('views') and clearly scopes it to ClickUp team, space, folder, or list. It distinguishes the tool from siblings because no other sibling tool deals with views, and the hierarchy terms clarify what entity the views belong to.

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 identifies the contexts in which the tool is used: team, space, folder, or list. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but since there is no sibling view tool, the usage context is reasonably clear.

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