clickup_shared_list

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 describes what the tool returns ('Returns an object with shared tasks, lists, and folders arrays'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and return format. Every sentence adds value: the first defines scope, the second provides context and output structure. There is no wasted verbiage or repetition.

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 (listing shared items), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by specifying the return structure and usage context. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like pagination or error handling, which would be beneficial for a tool with no structured metadata. It's mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'team_id' with its description. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with 0 required parameters and high schema coverage, the baseline is 3. It earns a 4 because the description implicitly clarifies that the tool operates on shared items, which contextualizes the parameter usage without redundancy.

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 ('every task, list, and folder that has been explicitly shared with the authenticated user from outside their default hierarchy'), specifying the exact scope of items returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings like clickup_task_list or clickup_folder_list by focusing on shared items rather than owned ones.

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: 'Useful for discovering items you have access to but don't own.' This provides clear context for usage versus alternatives like clickup_task_list (which lists tasks regardless of ownership) or clickup_workspace_list (which lists workspaces).

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