clickup_get_folder_views

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the return format (Markdown or JSON), listing returned fields (id, name, type, parent, required_views), and noting error handling (404 for wrong folder_id). This additional context is helpful beyond the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with the purpose, then has clearly labeled sections (When to Use, When NOT to Use, Returns, Examples, Error Handling). Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary text.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description appropriately does not elaborate on return values beyond what is needed. It covers the return format, key fields, error cases, and provides a concrete example. For a read-only list tool with siblings, it provides complete context for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (folder_id: 'Folder id to list views for.'; response_format: 'Output format.'). The tool description adds minimal additional meaning; it only gives an example using folder_id. Given that schema coverage is 0% (meaning no parameter descriptions in the tool description text itself), the description does not compensate significantly, but the schema fills the gap.

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 clearly states 'List the task and page views available for a Folder.' This provides a specific verb ('list') and resource ('views available for a Folder'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying when not to use it (for other view levels) and pointing to alternative tools.

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 explicitly includes 'When to Use' and 'When NOT to Use' sections. It explains that this tool is for discovering existing Folder-level views before calling other tools, and it excludes Everything-, Space-, or List-level views with references to specific sibling tools, providing clear guidance.

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