clickup_attachment_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'List'), returns structured data (array of attachment objects), uses pagination (cursor pagination), and references a specific API endpoint. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and return value. Each sentence adds distinct value without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and maintains appropriate brevity for a list operation tool.

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 read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides good context: it specifies what data is returned (attachment objects with specific fields), mentions pagination behavior, and references the API endpoint. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about response structure or error handling, though it's largely complete for its complexity level.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (task_id, team_id) well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema already provides comprehensive parameter documentation, the baseline score 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 the specific action ('List files attached to a ClickUp task') and resource ('task'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'clickup_attachment_upload' (for adding files) and 'clickup_task_list' (for listing tasks). It specifies the exact data returned (attachment objects with id, title, size, mime type, url, uploader), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use this tool ('List files attached to a ClickUp task') and provides a clear alternative ('Use clickup_attachment_upload to add a new file'). It also mentions the specific API endpoint ('v3 attachments endpoint') and pagination method ('cursor pagination'), offering comprehensive guidance for proper usage.

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