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 explains the return type (object with shared tasks, lists, folders arrays) and clarifies what 'shared' means. However, it does not mention potential pagination, response size limits, or permission requirements beyond the authenticated user context.

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 consists of three sentences that are concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds usage context, and the third describes the return type. There is no fluff, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must compensate. It states the return is an object with arrays, but it does not specify the fields within those arrays (e.g., task names, IDs). More detail on the response structure would improve completeness.

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?

There is only one parameter (team_id) with full schema description coverage (100%). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the resource 'every task, list, and folder that has been explicitly shared...'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like clickup_list_list, clickup_task_list, etc., which list owned items, by specifying 'from outside their default hierarchy' as a unique scope.

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 a clear use case: 'Useful for discovering items you have access to but don't own.' It implies when to use this tool (for shared items) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings.

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