clickup_workspace_plan

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 does state that the tool returns a plan object and mentions some Enterprise-specific features, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description provides some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly concise and front-loaded. The first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose, the second adds important context about Enterprise features, and the third specifies the return value. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words or redundant information.

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 simple read operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, provides context about plan implications, and specifies the return type. However, without annotations and with no output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the structure of the returned plan object or any authentication requirements. The description is adequate but has clear room for improvement.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the team_id parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current subscription plan of a ClickUp workspace'), including the exact plan names (Free, Unlimited, Business, Business Plus, Enterprise). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like clickup_workspace_list and clickup_workspace_seats by focusing specifically on subscription plan information rather than general workspace data or seat counts.

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 for when to use this tool ('Get the current subscription plan') and mentions that 'Some features (guests, audit logs, ACLs) require Enterprise,' which helps the agent understand the practical implications of the plan information. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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