clickup_get_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it partially meets it by enumerating returned fields (id, name, content, space info, statuses) and the absence of an output schema makes that valuable. However, it omits permission/auth needs, and says nothing about what happens when list_name matches multiple lists or no list at all — a real risk given the tool performs a name search.

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?

Three short sentences: identity, return payload, intended use. The lookup key is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim beyond the parameter names.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and what each input mode is for, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is behavior under ambiguity or non-match when resolving a list by name.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description adds only that either list_id or list_name may be used; workspace_id scoping and the name-search behavior are left entirely to the schema.

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 list details') and names the lookup keys (list_id or list_name). The resource ('list') is distinct from read siblings like clickup_get_folder and clickup_get_workspace_hierarchy, though the description never names an alternative to disambiguate further.

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?

'Use to resolve list names to IDs' gives a concrete use case that an agent can act on, and the 'by list_id or list_name' phrasing clarifies the two entry modes. It offers no exclusions or alternatives (e.g., use get_workspace_hierarchy to discover list names), so it stops short of a 5.

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