clickup_view_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format ('compact array of view objects (id, name, type)'), which is crucial behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some 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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first sentence defines purpose and scope, second sentence provides critical usage rules and output format. Every phrase earns its place, and the most important information (mutual exclusivity rule) is front-loaded.

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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by specifying return format and parameter rules. However, it could mention pagination behavior or typical response size to be fully complete. The lack of annotations means the description must cover more ground, and it mostly succeeds.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing the mutual exclusivity rule and workspace-level fallback, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb ('List') and resource ('saved views'), specifies the types of views (board, list, calendar, etc.), and identifies the scopes (space, folder, list, workspace). It distinguishes from siblings like clickup_view_get (retrieve single view) and clickup_view_tasks (list tasks in a view).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Exactly one of space_id/folder_id/list_id must be provided — or omit all three to list workspace-level views.' This provides clear rules for parameter usage and distinguishes from alternatives like clickup_view_get for single views.

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