clickup_folder_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 operation as a read-only list function, specifies the return format ('compact array of folder objects'), and details what fields are included ('id, name, task_count, archived'). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 establishes purpose and context, the second specifies return format. Every element serves a clear purpose with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse 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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description provides good context: it explains the resource hierarchy (folders within spaces), distinguishes from alternatives, and specifies the return format. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from mentioning whether the operation requires specific permissions or has any side effects.

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 (space_id and archived). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 folders') and resource ('in a ClickUp space'), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool clickup_list_list by explaining that folders are optional groupings and folderless lists should be accessed via that alternative tool.

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 versus alternatives: 'Folders are optional groupings that contain lists; a space may also have folderless lists (use clickup_list_list with space_id for those).' This clearly defines the scope and directs users to the appropriate sibling tool for related functionality.

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