clickup_group_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully inform. It states it returns an array of group objects with id, name, members, which implies a read operation. However, it does not mention pagination, error conditions, permissions, or other behavioral traits beyond the basic return shape.

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 that cover purpose, terminology clarification, and return format. No unnecessary words. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description provides the return shape (array of objects with id, name, members). This is sufficient for basic use, though it lacks details like pagination or field types.

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. The description adds value by explaining the group_ids parameter's optionality and the team_id parameter's default behavior, including how to obtain the ID from another tool. This goes beyond the schema.

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 user groups (teams) in a workspace, explains what a group is, and mentions the return format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like clickup_group_create by focusing on listing. No ambiguity.

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 when to use: when you need to list groups. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but since it is the only list-groups tool among siblings, the context is clear. Slight lack of exclusions.

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