clickup_doc_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('Fetch') and specifies what is returned ('metadata', 'doc object'), but lacks details about error conditions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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: purpose statement, exclusion guidance with alternatives, and return value. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, 1 required), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It clearly explains the tool's purpose, limitations, and alternatives. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details (error handling, response format).

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 (doc_id, team_id). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info 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 specific action ('Fetch metadata for a single ClickUp doc') and resource ('doc'), listing key metadata fields (name, parent, dates, type). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating what it does NOT return and naming alternative tools for content retrieval (clickup_doc_pages, clickup_doc_get_page).

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 (for metadata only) and when to use alternatives (for content retrieval), naming specific sibling tools (clickup_doc_pages with content=true, clickup_doc_get_page). This gives clear context for tool selection.

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