clickup_goal_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format ('compact array of goal objects with id, name, percent_completed, due_date'), which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and scope, second provides usage guidance and alternative. Every element serves a clear purpose, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides good context: explains what goals are, specifies return format, and gives clear usage guidance. Missing elements like pagination details or error handling prevent a perfect score, but it's largely complete for this complexity level.

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 the single optional parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., doesn't explain workspace context further). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all ClickUp goals in a workspace'), specifies the nature of goals ('OKR-style objective'), and distinguishes from sibling clickup_goal_get by mentioning the compact array format versus full goal details. This provides specific differentiation from related tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('List all ClickUp goals') versus when to use an alternative ('Use clickup_goal_get for the full goal including its key_results'). This provides clear guidance on tool selection based on the level of detail needed.

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