clickup_workspace_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it lists workspaces accessible to the current user. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements beyond 'current user', pagination behavior, or what happens if no workspaces are accessible. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('List all ClickUp workspaces') and adds clarifying context ('(teams) accessible to the current user'). Every word earns its place with no wasted verbiage or structural issues.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose but lacks important context. Without annotations, it should ideally mention that this is a read operation, describe the return format (e.g., list of workspace objects), and clarify scope relative to siblings. The current description is minimally viable but leaves the agent guessing about behavioral aspects.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input requirements. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information since none are needed, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without redundancy. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 action ('List all') and resource ('ClickUp workspaces (teams)'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clickup_space_list' or 'clickup_workspace_plan', which might cause confusion about scope boundaries.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'clickup_space_list' or 'clickup_workspace_plan'. It mentions accessibility ('accessible to the current user') but doesn't explain why one would choose this over other workspace-related tools or what specific use cases it addresses.

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