clickup_chat_channel_followers

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 states this is a read operation ('List') and describes the return format ('array of user objects'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions that would be important for a production 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?

The description is perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: the first states the purpose, the second clarifies the follower-member relationship, and the third specifies the return format. No wasted words, and the most important information comes first.

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 no output schema, the description provides good context: it explains what the tool does, distinguishes it from siblings, and specifies the return format. However, without annotations and with no output schema, it could benefit from mentioning pagination behavior or typical response structure details to be fully complete.

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%, so the input schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 ('List') and resource ('users who follow a ClickUp Chat channel'), and distinguishes this tool from its sibling clickup_chat_channel_members by explaining that followers are a subset of members. This precise differentiation helps the agent understand the specific scope of this tool.

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 by explaining the relationship between followers and members, which helps the agent understand when to use this tool versus clickup_chat_channel_members. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention other potential alternatives beyond the sibling distinction.

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