clickup_get_chat_channel_messages

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 usefully discloses pagination support, the reply/thread relationship, and channel URL shapes, but says nothing about ordering, whether results are permission-scoped, what limits apply, or what a message object contains. Adequate but with clear gaps for a read tool with zero 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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, thread routing, pagination, and ID discovery. Front-loaded with the core action and free of filler.

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 five-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, threading, pagination, and ID acquisition. Return-value shape and result ordering are unstated, but the agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit, cursor, workspace_id, and content_format, making 3 the baseline. The description adds genuine value by explaining where channel_id comes from via the URL patterns (/<ws>/v/cn/<channel_id> or /<ws>/chat/r/<channel_id>), which the schema does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get messages for a chat channel') and immediately names the sibling tool that handles the adjacent case (clickup_get_chat_message_replies for threads). An agent can distinguish this from clickup_get_chat_channels and clickup_send_chat_message without opening any schema.

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 routes thread retrieval to clickup_get_chat_message_replies when has_replies=true, which is a real when-to-use-this-vs-alternative signal. It also explains how to obtain channel_id from channel URLs. It does not say when not to use this (e.g., browsing channels first), keeping it below a 5.

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