clickup_comment_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 return format ('compact array of comment objects with id, comment_text, user, resolved, date'), ordering ('chronological order, oldest first'), and scope limitation ('only top-level comments'). However, it doesn't mention potential constraints like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which would be helpful 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 efficiently structured in three sentences: one stating the core functionality, one defining scope and alternatives, and one describing the return format. Each sentence adds essential information with zero redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits (ordering, scope, return format), and distinguishes from siblings. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates by specifying the return structure. Additional details like error cases or pagination would enhance 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%, with the single parameter 'task_id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify format or provide examples). This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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'), resource ('comments on a ClickUp task'), and scope ('in chronological order, oldest first'). It specifically distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'clickup_comment_replies' by noting it only returns top-level comments, making the purpose unambiguous and 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 specifies 'Only top-level comments are returned; use clickup_comment_replies to fetch a threaded reply chain.' This clearly defines the tool's scope and directs users to the sibling tool for related functionality.

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