clickup_view_get

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 effectively describes what the tool returns ('Returns the view object') and clarifies what it doesn't return (tasks). However, it doesn't mention potential error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which would be helpful for a complete behavioral picture.

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 in three sentences: first states what the tool fetches with specific details, second provides crucial exclusion guidance, third confirms the return type. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 read-only fetch operation with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides good context about what information is returned and what isn't. It could be more complete by mentioning the response format or potential error cases, but given the tool's simplicity and clear sibling differentiation, it's mostly adequate.

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 single parameter 'view_id' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'full definition of a single ClickUp view', with specific details about what's included (name, type, parent scope, filters, grouping, sort order, column layout). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling clickup_view_tasks by stating 'Does not return the tasks inside the view; use clickup_view_tasks for that.'

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Does not return the tasks inside the view; use clickup_view_tasks for that.' It also indicates the prerequisite for obtaining the view_id parameter from clickup_view_list. This gives clear context for tool selection.

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