clickup_get_shared_hierarchy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description focuses on additional behavioral traits: the endpoint, distinction from group membership, explanation that this surfaces items not normally visible via normal hierarchy, and error handling (404/401). No contradictions were found.

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 well-structured with clearly labeled sections: main statement, endpoint, explanation, When to Use, When NOT to Use, Returns, Example, Error Handling. Every sentence adds unique value without redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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 list tool with one required parameter, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, output format, error handling, and provides an example and alternatives. An output schema exists (not shown), so return value documentation is covered elsewhere. The description is fully complete for this tool's complexity.

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 good descriptions for both parameters (team_id: 'Workspace id to look up items shared...', response_format: 'Output format: markdown or json'). The description adds little semantic value beyond the schema; it mentions team_id in the endpoint URL and example, and notes the output format, but does not provide new details. Given schema coverage is adequate, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List the Tasks, Lists, and Folders individually shared with the caller.' It specifies the verb (list), resources (tasks, lists, folders), and scope (individually shared), distinguishing it from shared group membership. The endpoint is also mentioned, providing full clarity.

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 includes explicit 'When to Use' and 'When NOT to Use' sections. It advises using the tool to audit individual shares and explicitly warns against using it for the inverse direction (who has access to a specific item). It names alternative tools (clickup_get_list_members, clickup_get_task_members) for that purpose.

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