clickup_chat_channel_get

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 operation (fetch), specifies what data is returned (metadata fields), and clarifies what is NOT returned (messages). However, it doesn't mention potential error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which would be helpful for a tool with no annotations.

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: first states the core purpose and metadata fields, second provides crucial exclusion guidance, third confirms the return type. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand.

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 metadata retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides good context: it specifies what metadata is returned, distinguishes from message retrieval, and confirms the return type. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the exact structure of the returned channel object or any limitations.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 ('Fetch metadata') and resource ('single ClickUp chat channel'), listing key metadata fields (name, description, visibility, member count, latest activity). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool clickup_chat_message_list by stating 'Does not return the messages themselves; use clickup_chat_message_list for that.'

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Does not return the messages themselves; use clickup_chat_message_list for that.' It also implicitly guides usage by specifying what metadata is returned, helping the agent understand this is for channel metadata retrieval rather than message content.

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