clickup_space_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 describes what the tool returns (the space object with specific attributes) and mentions the need to obtain the space_id from another tool (clickup_space_list), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's read-only/destructive. The description is accurate but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and structured for clarity.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use alternatives. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return format or error handling, but it's sufficient for a basic read operation.

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, with the space_id parameter clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the parameter is required for fetching a single space, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 ('fetch') and resource ('single ClickUp space'), specifies the scope ('full object') and key attributes returned (name, privacy, statuses, features, members), and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining that clickup_folder_list or clickup_list_list should be used to enumerate contents. This is specific and provides clear differentiation.

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 ('Fetch the full object for a single ClickUp space') and provides clear alternatives for related operations ('Use clickup_folder_list or clickup_list_list to enumerate the space's contents'). It also implicitly indicates when not to use it (e.g., for listing spaces or enumerating contents).

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