clickup_doc_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 key behaviors: it's a read operation (implied by 'List'), returns a 'compact array of doc objects' with specific fields, and uses 'v3 cursor pagination' (important for handling large result sets). However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions.

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, return format clarification, and usage/pagination details. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 list operation with no output schema, the description provides good context: purpose, return format, pagination method, and sibling tool relationships. It could be more complete by mentioning authentication or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity and good parameter documentation, it's mostly adequate.

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 input schema already fully documents the single optional parameter (team_id). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but the schema provides complete documentation, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 all ClickUp docs'), resource ('in a workspace'), and scope ('all'). It distinguishes docs as 'long-form markdown documents separate from tasks' and mentions nested pages, differentiating it from sibling tools like clickup_task_list or clickup_doc_pages.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: it names two alternative tools (clickup_doc_get for a single doc and clickup_doc_pages to list a doc's pages) and specifies when to use this tool instead. This gives clear context for tool selection among siblings.

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