clickup_get_chat_channels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only notes 'pagination support', which the schema's cursor field already documents; it says nothing about ordering, whether archived/private channels are included, or what permissions are needed.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is partly under-specification rather than deliberate compression.

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-only list tool with three optional, fully documented parameters, this is close to adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum note that results are paginated channel objects whose IDs feed the message tools.

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%, with limit, cursor, and workspace_id all documented in-schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond repeating that pagination exists.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'List chat channels in the workspace', which is clearly distinct from the sibling clickup_get_chat_channel_messages that operates inside a channel. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of 5.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is stated. Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step that yields channel IDs for the message-reading siblings, but the description never says so.

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