clickup_list_document_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that no content is returned, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what the returned 'structure' looks like; with no annotations, a read-only listing tool needs a bit more behavioral detail.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the scope constraint ('no content') front-loaded ahead of the routing hint. Every clause earns its place.

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 listing tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the alternative tool. Minor gaps remain around ordering/pagination and the shape of the returned structure, but nothing an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly is missing.

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 three parameters (document_id, workspace_id, max_page_depth) are fully documented in the schema, including URL parsing hints and the -1 convention. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List page names and structure of a document') and immediately scopes it with '(no content)'. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling clickup_get_document_pages, which fetches full content.

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?

It names the alternative explicitly ('Use get_document_pages to fetch full page content') and gives the condition that selects it (needing content rather than just names/structure). Nothing is left to inference.

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