get_doc_page_listing

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the output (page ids, titles, hierarchy) and what is omitted (full content), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention any limitations, side effects, or permissions required, leaving gaps.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the tool's primary action and output, and the second gives usage guidance. Information is front-loaded effectively.

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?

The description explains the output nature and usage context, but lacks detail on how the optional parameter 'max_page_depth' behaves and the fallback behavior of 'team_id'. Given 3 parameters and no output schema, more complete behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 the input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific details beyond what is in the schema, achieving the baseline score of 3.

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 retrieves the page tree of a Doc (ClickUp Docs v3) with page ids, titles, and nesting hierarchy, without full content. It specifies the resource and scope, and distinguishes from fetching full content. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 explicitly advises using the tool to navigate a Doc's structure before fetching a specific page, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools, though the use case is well-defined.

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