clickup_template_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 discloses that the tool returns an array of template objects with id and name, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention pagination details (implied by the input schema), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by explanatory context and return details in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 low complexity (read-only list operation), 2 parameters with full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, usage context, and return format. However, it lacks details on pagination behavior (beyond schema hints) and error cases, which could enhance completeness 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (page and team_id) thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as default values or usage examples, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 resource 'task templates available in a workspace,' specifying what templates are ('saved task shapes...'). It distinguishes from siblings like clickup_template_apply_task by explaining templates are for applying to create tasks, not for applying them directly.

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 clear context by mentioning templates can be applied via clickup_template_apply_task, indicating when this tool is useful (to get templates for quick task creation). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as clickup_task_create for creating tasks without templates.

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