clickup_task_time_in_status

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 discloses key behavioral traits: it returns an object mapping status names to total-time and since-timestamp values, specifies the time unit (milliseconds), and implies it's a read-only operation for analysis. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, but covers the core behavior adequately.

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 useful example and details on the return format. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to scan.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it explains the purpose, usage context, and return format. However, it lacks details on potential errors, authentication needs, or data freshness, which could be helpful for an agent.

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%, with the parameter 'task_id' fully documented in the schema (including how to obtain it). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 ('Report how long a task has spent in each status since creation') and resource ('task'), distinguishing it from siblings like clickup_task_get or clickup_task_list. The example ('e.g. 3 days in 'open', 1 day in 'in review'') reinforces the purpose, making it immediately understandable.

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 the tool is 'Useful for cycle-time analysis,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as clickup_task_get for general task details or clickup_time_history for time tracking.

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