lists_search

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions that results include name and content. It does not clarify whether all lists are returned, whether any filtering occurs, or the exact return format. The term 'search' is ambiguous given the schema has no query parameters.

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 short sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and scope, and the mention of return details is directly useful. Excellent conciseness for the content provided.

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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain the exact behavior (e.g., returns all lists in a container), nor does it specify return values beyond 'name and content'. Missing usage guidance and behavioral context makes it incomplete.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both container_id and container_type, including enum values. The description adds minimal semantic value by restating 'folder or space' already captured in the schema, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 states 'Search for lists in a ClickUp folder or space' which clearly identifies the resource (lists) and scope (folder or space). The verb 'search' implies retrieval, though it may mislead since no search query parameter exists. Some differentiation from siblings is provided by supporting both folder and space types.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lists_list_in_space or lists_get. The description offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or hints about which container type is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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