clickup_role_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 this is a read operation ('List'), describes the return format ('array of role objects with id, name, members'), and mentions scope (workspace-level). However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether authentication is required, potential rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior for large result sets.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second explains what roles are and what's returned. Every sentence earns its place with useful information. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 simple read operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides good context: purpose, scope, return format, and role definition. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details (like authentication requirements or error handling). The description is complete enough for basic usage but has room for improvement on operational aspects.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'team_id' already well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 ('custom roles defined in a ClickUp workspace'), specifies what roles are included (Member, Guest, Admin, Owner, plus custom Enterprise roles), and explains what roles are ('define baseline permissions assigned to users'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like clickup_member_list or clickup_user_list by focusing specifically on roles rather than users/members.

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 (to list custom roles in a workspace) and mentions that it returns role objects. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., clickup_member_list for listing users rather than roles). The guidance is helpful but could be more comparative.

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