clickup_get_task_time_in_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the output shape and the ClickApp prerequisite, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permission requirements, error behavior when the ClickApp is disabled, or rate limits.

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 three tightly written sentences: purpose first, return values second, prerequisite third. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or 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?

Given a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description explains the result at a useful level and states the ClickApp prerequisite. It is nearly complete, though it could mention error handling when the required ClickApp is not enabled.

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 both parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is high.

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 states a specific verb and resource: getting time a task spent in each status. It also clarifies the return content, current status plus full history. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the bulk sibling clickup_get_bulk_tasks_time_in_status or other time-related tools, so it falls short of the top score.

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 an important prerequisite: the 'Total time in Status' ClickApp must be enabled. It implies use for a single task's status-time breakdown, but it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of clickup_get_bulk_tasks_time_in_status, clickup_get_time_entries, or other alternatives.

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