project_intelligence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states 'Every action handles edge cases,' which adds some behavioral insight, but it does not clarify whether operations are read-only, what output format is expected, or any rate limits or side effects. While the analytical nature is implied, these details are absent.

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 dense paragraph, front-loaded with the main purpose, then listing eight actions with compact explanations. It is slightly long but every sentence contributes to understanding the actions. The final sentence 'Every action handles edge cases' is a useful behavioral note, though a bulleted list could improve scannability.

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?

With eight distinct actions and no output schema, the description does not specify return formats or examples for each action, leaving the agent uncertain about what 'actionable insights' look like. It also lacks guidance on handling overlaps with sibling tools like dependencies or time_entries_list. This makes the context incomplete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters already have descriptions. The description adds value by explaining each action enum value (e.g., 'velocity' measures completion rate, 'risk' surfaces tasks needing attention), which the schema enum does not. It does not add further detail for list_id or the date parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Analyze ClickUp project data and return actionable insights,' identifying a specific verb and resource. It also enumerates eight distinct actions (health, bottlenecks, velocity, etc.), each with a brief purpose, which distinguishes this analytical tool from CRUD sibling tools like tasks_create or lists_get.

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 each action (e.g., 'health' for status overview, 'bottlenecks' to find stuck workflows), enabling an agent to choose the appropriate analysis type. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like tasks_list or time_entries_list, and offers no exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance.

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