clickup_task_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 mentions that the tool 'returns the task object,' which is helpful, but lacks details on error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. The description adds some behavioral context but does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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, followed by a detailed list of included fields and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (fetching a single task with optional subtasks), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and response content, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or authentication, leaving some gaps in context.

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 documents both parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('fetch the full object for a single ClickUp task') and resource ('ClickUp task'), distinguishing it from siblings like clickup_task_list or clickup_task_search. It provides a comprehensive list of what fields are included in the response, making the purpose explicit and specific.

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 ('to fetch the full object for a single ClickUp task') and when to use alternatives ('Use clickup_task_list or clickup_task_search to find a task_id'). This provides clear guidance on the tool's context and prerequisites, helping the agent select the right tool.

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