clickup_field_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 tool's behavior: it's a read operation (implied by 'List'), returns structured data (array of custom field definitions), and specifies the scope (custom fields on a list, with inheritance from folder/space noted in schema). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, but provides sufficient context for basic usage.

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 two sentences: the first explains what the tool does and what it returns, the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds clear value without 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and output format. However, it lacks details on error conditions, authentication requirements, or rate limits, which would be helpful for full contextual understanding.

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, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the parameter ('list_id') in the context of the tool's function and its relationship to other tools ('Obtain from clickup_list_list'), enhancing understanding beyond the schema's technical documentation.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('custom field definitions available on a ClickUp list'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning its relationship to 'clickup_field_set' for learning correct field_id and value shape. It provides concrete details about what information is returned (field id, name, type, permitted option values for dropdown/labels).

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 states when to use this tool ('Use this before clickup_field_set to learn the correct field_id and value shape'), providing clear guidance on its purpose in a workflow context. It also distinguishes it from alternatives by specifying it's for listing custom field definitions, unlike other field-related tools like clickup_field_set or clickup_field_unset.

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