clickup_comment_replies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the operation is a read/list function (implied by 'List'), it returns an array of reply objects with specific fields (id, comment_text, user, date), and specifies the sorting order ('oldest first'). However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first explains what the tool does and its return format, the second provides usage guidance and alternative reference. There's zero wasted language, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides good context: it explains the purpose, return format, sorting, and alternative tool. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from mentioning authentication requirements or error conditions, though the current coverage is quite good for this complexity level.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the comment_id parameter fully documented in the schema itself ('ID of the parent comment. Obtain from clickup_comment_list'). The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so the baseline score of 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 specific action ('List the threaded replies'), target resource ('attached to a top-level ClickUp comment'), and scope ('oldest first'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'clickup_comment_reply' which is for posting new replies, establishing clear differentiation.

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 vs. alternatives: 'Use clickup_comment_reply to post a new reply to the thread.' It also specifies the prerequisite for obtaining the comment_id from 'clickup_comment_list', creating clear context for proper usage.

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