clickup_list_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a 'compact array of list objects' with specific fields (id, name, task_count, archived), which adds valuable behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 parameter constraints and output details, then a clear sibling tool reference. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it explains the purpose, parameter constraints, output format, and sibling tool relationship. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details like error handling or pagination.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the mutual exclusivity of folder_id and space_id, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('ClickUp lists'), specifies the scope ('under either a folder or a space'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'clickup_task_list' for drilling into specific lists. This provides a specific, unambiguous purpose.

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 states when to use this tool ('list ClickUp lists under either a folder or a space') and when to use an alternative ('Use clickup_task_list to drill into a specific list'). It also clarifies the mutual exclusivity of folder_id and space_id, providing clear usage guidance.

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