clickup_goal_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the return format as a compact array of objects, implying a read-only operation. However, it lacks details on potential pagination, rate limits, ordering, or error conditions beyond what is implied by listing. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, context about goals, return format, and an alternative. No unnecessary words or redundancy, 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, return format, and an alternative. It could mention potential pagination or ordering, but these are minor gaps.

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 schema already describes the team_id parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining how to obtain the team_id from another tool (clickup_workspace_list) and the optional default behavior. This provides actionable guidance beyond the schema definitions.

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 tool lists all ClickUp goals in a workspace, describes their OKR-style nature, specifies the return array fields (id, name, percent_completed, due_date), and differentiates from the sibling tool clickup_goal_get which returns full goal details including key results.

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 a clear alternative by directing users to clickup_goal_get for full goal details, and explains when to omit the team_id parameter to use the default workspace. However, it does not explicitly state scenarios where this tool should not be used or mention prerequisites.

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