clickup_guest_get

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 communicates that this is a read operation ('fetch'), specifies the return format ('guest object'), and mentions important constraints ('Requires Enterprise plan'). It doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or error behaviors, but provides solid core information.

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 three sentences: purpose statement, context about guests, and constraints/return value. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, and the most important information (what the tool does) comes first.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides good context: it specifies what data is returned, mentions the Enterprise plan requirement, and gives purpose clarity. It could benefit from mentioning authentication requirements or error cases, but covers the essential information for proper tool selection and use.

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. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when the 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 'fetch' and resource 'profile of a specific guest user', specifying the data returned (email, permissions, shared items). It distinguishes from siblings like clickup_guest_invite (create) and clickup_guest_update (modify) by being a read-only retrieval operation.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('Fetch the profile of a specific guest user') and mentions the Enterprise plan requirement. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the purpose clearly differentiates it from other guest-related tools.

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