workspace_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains what content is searched (tasks, docs, chats, attachments) but does not disclose behavioral details such as pagination, relevance ordering, read-only nature, or authorization requirements. For a search tool, the read-only implication is helpful but not explicit.

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-constructed sentence that front-loads the primary action and object, followed by a concise list of content types. Every word contributes meaning; there is 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 moderate complexity and a fully described schema, the description provides adequate high-level context for a search tool. It does not mention return format or result structure, but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of search reduce the burden. Slightly more detail about result behavior would be helpful, but current coverage is sufficient.

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 schema provides complete descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond what is already structured. The mention of content types aligns with the asset_types parameter but does not add new meaning; thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('all content in a ClickUp workspace'), with illustrative content types (tasks, docs, chats, attachments). This differentiates it from sibling tools like lists_search and tasks_list, which search narrower scopes.

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 usage for broad, cross-type searches across a workspace, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool rather than more targeted search tools. The presence of sibling tools like lists_search suggests a need for exclusion guidance, which is only implicitly provided by the scope wording.

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