clickup_space_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return format ('compact array of space objects') and fields included, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior. The description adds value but leaves gaps for a read operation.

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 with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, explaining what spaces are, and providing usage guidance. There's no wasted text, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context: it explains what spaces are, what the tool returns, and when to use alternatives. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details like authentication or error handling. The completeness is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.

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 specific action ('List all spaces'), identifies the resource ('in a ClickUp workspace'), and provides context about what spaces are ('top-level containers below the workspace'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning clickup_folder_list and clickup_list_list as alternatives for drilling down, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides usage guidance by stating when to use this tool ('List all spaces') versus alternatives ('Use clickup_folder_list or clickup_list_list with a space_id to drill down'). It also clarifies the hierarchical position of spaces in the workspace structure, helping the agent understand the appropriate context for invocation.

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