clickup_workspace_seats

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 object with seat counts, which is helpful, but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. The description does not contradict any annotations, but it could be more informative for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 two sentences: the first explains the tool's purpose and output, and the second provides usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the return format. However, it could improve by addressing missing behavioral details like authentication needs or rate limits, which are relevant for a tool with no annotations.

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 (including how to obtain it and default behavior). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for gaps.

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 specific action ('Get the seat-usage breakdown') and resource ('for a ClickUp workspace'), including details about what types of seats are counted (paid member, guest, internal) and what information is provided (used vs. available). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like clickup_workspace_list or clickup_workspace_plan by focusing exclusively on seat capacity metrics.

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 the tool ('Useful before inviting new users to confirm capacity'), which gives clear context for its application. However, it does not specify when not to use it or name alternative tools for related purposes, such as clickup_member_list for user details without seat counts.

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