clickup_get_team_views

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: output format (Markdown or JSON), returned fields (id, name, type, parent), and error handling (404 for wrong team_id). No contradictions.

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-organized into clear sections (purpose, when to use/not use, returns, examples, error handling). It is concise with no unnecessary words, every sentence provides necessary guidance.

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 tool is a simple read operation with only two parameters, the description covers all essential aspects: scope, purpose, usage guidance, output structure, and error handling. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values in detail.

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 describes both parameters (team_id and response_format) with descriptions. The description adds value by specifying default response_format as 'markdown', showing an example, and linking error handling to parameter values.

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 defined at the Everything Level of a Workspace.' This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like clickup_get_space_views, clickup_get_folder_views, and clickup_get_list_views.

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?

Explicit 'When to Use' and 'When NOT to Use' sections guide the agent. It directs to sibling tools for other scopes and advises using this tool before calling view-related tools (clickup_get_view, clickup_get_view_tasks, clickup_update_view).

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