clickup_doc_pages

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: it returns an array of page objects with specific fields, includes ordering ('ordered by their tree position'), and mentions performance trade-offs for the content parameter. However, it doesn't cover authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential details about return format and ordering. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and scannable.

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 listing tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic operation. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details about authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, and the complete structure of returned page objects beyond the listed fields.

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 all three parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the 'content' parameter's effect on performance and payload size, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 pages inside a ClickUp doc') and resource ('pages'), including scope details ('including any nested subpages'). It distinguishes from siblings like clickup_doc_get (retrieves a single doc) and clickup_doc_get_page (retrieves a single page) by focusing on listing all pages within a document.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to list pages within a document with optional content inclusion). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the purpose naturally differentiates it from non-doc-related tools.

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