clickup_list_get

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 fetches data (implied read-only) and returns a list object, but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's idempotent. The description adds some context (e.g., what data is included) but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 in the first sentence, followed by a concise usage guideline. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool, with no wasted words.

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 (one parameter, no nested objects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the purpose, usage guidelines, and what data is returned. However, it doesn't fully address behavioral aspects like error cases or response format details, which would be helpful for an agent. It's adequate but has minor gaps in context.

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%, with the parameter 'list_id' well-documented in the schema ('ID of the list to fetch. Obtain from clickup_list_list'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 specific action ('Fetch the full object for a single ClickUp list') and resource ('list'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'clickup_list_list' (which lists multiple lists) and 'clickup_task_list' (which lists tasks). It enumerates key attributes returned (name, content/description, statuses, etc.), making the purpose explicit and 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 explicitly provides when to use this tool ('to fetch the full object for a single ClickUp list') and when to use an alternative ('Use clickup_task_list with list_id to enumerate tasks inside it'). It also implies usage context by mentioning how to obtain the list_id from 'clickup_list_list', offering clear guidance on prerequisites and alternatives.

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