clickup_raw

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that auth, retries, and rate-limiting are handled. It references the ClickUp API documentation for further details. However, it does not explicitly mention the raw response format or error handling, which would be helpful for an escape hatch tool.

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?

Two sentences plus a reference link. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the description is highly efficient.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values, but references the API documentation. It covers key aspects like method, path, version, params, body, and handled features. Slightly incomplete on error handling or response format, but sufficient for an escape hatch tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context: it explains the path format (after version segment), the version usage ('v2' default, 'v3' for Docs/Chat), and that query params and body are optional. This goes beyond the schema to clarify usage.

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 it can call any ClickUp REST endpoint, functioning as an escape hatch for full API coverage. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it should be used only when no dedicated tool exists.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this only when no dedicated tool exists.' Also mentions that auth, retries, and rate-limiting are handled, giving clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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