clickup_group_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an array of group objects with specific fields (id, name, members), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a read operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clarification on groups and return values. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 low complexity (read-only list operation), 2 parameters with full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, what groups are, and the return structure. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from mentioning behavioral aspects like pagination or auth needs to be fully comprehensive.

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 (group_ids and team_id). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles all parameter 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 verb ('List') and resource ('user groups'), specifies the resource's alternate name ('teams' in ClickUp UI), and defines what a group is. It distinguishes from siblings like clickup_member_list (individual users) and clickup_role_list (roles), making the purpose specific and well-differentiated.

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 implies usage for retrieving groups in a workspace, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., clickup_group_create for creation). It provides context about groups being used for mentions or assignments, which helps infer usage, but does not state exclusions or name specific alternatives.

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