clickup_chat_channel_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'an array of user objects (id, username, email)', which adds useful behavioral context about the output format. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency for a read operation.

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 in the first sentence, followed by a usage guideline and output details in the second. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value—no waste or redundancy—making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 tool's low complexity (a simple list operation), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and output format. However, without annotations, it could benefit from mentioning that this is a read-only operation or any authentication requirements, slightly reducing completeness.

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 schema already fully documents the two parameters (channel_id and team_id). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides regarding parameters, as it focuses on purpose and output. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 are members of a ClickUp Chat channel'), specifying that these members 'can read and post'. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'clickup_chat_channel_followers' by noting that followers are for 'notification-receivers only', making the purpose specific and well-differentiated.

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: it states to use 'clickup_chat_channel_followers' for 'notification-receivers only', clearly differentiating the use case. This direct naming of an alternative tool offers precise context for selection.

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