clickup_audit_log_query

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 key traits: it's a query operation (implied read-only), requires Enterprise plan (access control), uses v3 cursor pagination (technical behavior), and returns an array of audit event objects (output format). It lacks details on rate limits or error handling, but covers essential behavioral aspects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key details in a logical order: filters, prerequisites, pagination, and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to scan.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, filters, prerequisites, pagination, and return structure. However, it could improve by detailing error cases or response formats more explicitly, but it provides sufficient context for effective tool use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning filter criteria ('filter by event type, acting user, and date range'), but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Query') and resource ('ClickUp audit log'), with specific scope ('for a workspace') and purpose ('who did what, when'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on audit log querying, unlike other tools that handle tasks, comments, or attachments.

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 a workspace') and mentions a prerequisite ('Requires Enterprise plan'), which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, such as for real-time monitoring versus historical queries.

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