clickup_get_workspace_hierarchy

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose pagination ('cursor') and depth control, and 'Get' signals a read operation, but it says nothing about the response shape, ordering of results, or behavior when space_ids matches nothing. Adequate but thin for a 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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the primary capability is front-loaded before the routing caveat. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

All five parameters are optional, the schema is self-documenting, and the description covers the two behaviors (pagination, depth) an agent must understand to call it well. With no output schema, a brief note on what the hierarchy response looks like would close the remaining gap.

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 all five parameters including the max_depth enum are fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'pagination and depth control' echoes but does not extend those semantics — baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Get workspace hierarchy (spaces, folders, lists)' — and scopes it with 'pagination and depth control', so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It distinguishes itself implicitly from the many sibling resolvers ('most tools resolve names automatically') rather than naming specific ones like clickup_get_folder or clickup_get_list, so it falls just short of a 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?

'Use only when you need the workspace structure' is an explicit use condition, and 'most tools resolve names automatically' is an explicit when-not cue that steers the agent away from calling it gratuitously. It stops short of naming the alternative tools to use instead, which is what a 5 would require.

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