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

Discloses default status behavior and list existence fallback, but fails to mention mutation nature, error handling, or atomicity of bulk creation. No annotations to supplement.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Achieves conciseness without sacrificing clarity.

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?

Lacks description of return value (e.g., created task IDs) and error handling for a bulk operation. No output schema to compensate.

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?

Adds value beyond schema by explaining name-based list lookup ('no need to know the list ID') and default status advice. Schema coverage is 100%.

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?

Description clearly states 'Create multiple tasks in a ClickUp list' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like create_task (single task) and create_list (list creation).

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?

Provides context on default status usage and fallback to create_list if list doesn't exist. Implicitly contrasts with create_task for single tasks, but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions the name lookup and API limitation but omits behavioral details such as required permissions, error handling, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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, no wasted words, and the main purpose is front-loaded. Achieves maximum conciseness.

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?

Lacks details about return values, error handling, or required permissions. For a simple creation tool without output schema or annotations, this is borderline adequate but not fully complete.

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 all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the name-lookup feature and the fallback for missing spaces, supplementing the schema for spaceId/spaceName.

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 action ('Create a new folder in a ClickUp space') and highlights the space name-based lookup, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle tasks or lists.

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?

Provides practical guidance on when to use name-based lookup and explains that space creation is not supported via API, but does not explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like create_list.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the lack of API space creation but does not disclose crucial aspects like authentication requirements, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens on failure (e.g., duplicate list name). The return value is also not described.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the core purpose stated first. Every word adds value, and the secondary sentence provides critical context about name-based lookup and API limitations.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description should cover more than just space handling. It omits explanations for other parameters like content, dueDate, priority, assignee, and status, and does not describe the return value (e.g., the created list's ID or details). This leaves significant gaps for agent decision-making.

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?

While the input schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds value by explaining the relationship between spaceId and spaceName, and the limitation that space creation is not supported. This context aids the agent in parameter selection.

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 action ('Create a new list') and the resource ('in a ClickUp space'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_folder and create_list_in_folder by specifying it creates a list directly in a space, not in a folder.

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 provides useful guidance on using spaceName for name-based lookup, eliminating the need for spaceId. It also explains the limitation that space creation is not supported via API. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus create_list_in_folder for nested lists under folders.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses name-based lookup and fallback actions for missing folder/space. However, it does not explain behavior when multiple matches exist for folder or space names, nor does it specify parameter precedence when both ID and name are provided.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, key feature (name lookup), and fallback guidance. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers creation and resolution behavior. However, it lacks details on handling ambiguous names, parameter precedence, and error conditions, leaving minor gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context like 'name-based lookup' and references to create_folder, but most parameter details are already in the schema descriptions. No significant additional semantic value.

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 creates a new list in a ClickUp folder, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_list (likely workspace-level) and create_folder (for folders). The verb 'create' and resource 'list in a folder' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance: when the folder doesn't exist, use create_folder; when the space doesn't exist, create it via web interface. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that status defaults to ClickUp default and markdown_description takes precedence. However, it does not discuss return values, error handling, or side effects, leaving gaps.

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 with two efficient sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds critical usage details. No wasted words.

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's moderate complexity and no output schema, the description covers core functionality but omits return value details and error handling. It is adequate but could be more complete for a creation tool.

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%, setting baseline at 3. The description adds value by explaining the automatic name-based lookup and the precedence of markdown_description, which goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 'Create a new task in ClickUp' with specific verb and resource. It highlights the unique feature of name-based list lookup, distinguishing it from other task creation tools. The mention of default status and fallback to create_list further clarifies its scope.

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 provides guidance on when to use this tool (e.g., using name-based lookup) and suggests alternatives (create_list or create_list_in_folder) when list doesn't exist. It also advises when to omit status. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from create_bulk_tasks.

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

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

Only discloses irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), but omits other critical behavioral details such as required permissions, cascading effects on linked data, or whether the task is permanently removed or soft-deleted. With no annotations, the description inadequately informs the agent.

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, direct sentences that convey the essential purpose and a key behavioral note. No extraneous information, efficiently front-loaded.

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 destructive operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out important context such as return behavior, error conditions, and effects on related data. It fails to fully equip the agent for correct invocation.

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%, and the schema already describes 'taskId' as 'ID of the task to delete'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so 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 action ('Delete a task') and the resource ('from your workspace'), with the irreversibility note adding clarity. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_task or update_task by focusing on deletion.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_task or move_task. The description lacks context about prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios where deletion is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose what exactly is duplicated (e.g., fields, attachments), how name conflicts are resolved, or error handling. The behavior around automatic name lookup and duplicate resolution is unclear.

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 with two front-loaded sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and key usage notes. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 has 5 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description reasonably covers usage patterns and fallback options. Missing details on return value (e.g., duplicated task ID) slightly reduce completeness, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond summarizing name-based lookup and list creation fallback. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 duplicates a task to a list, with specific verbs and resources. It also adds convenience features like name-based lookup, distinguishing it from sibling 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 explains when to use this tool for duplication and provides alternative tools for list creation (create_list, create_list_in_folder). However, it does not explicitly contrast with other task operations like create_task or move_task, leaving some guidance implicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions attachments are included, which is a helpful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose idempotency, required permissions, or rate limits. The 'get' verb implies read-only but not explicitly stated.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and a key differentiator. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema and three optional parameters, the description covers main purpose and a feature (attachments). However, it lacks details on behavior when no parameters are provided, error handling, or response structure, which would be helpful for full understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reinforcing that taskName enables name-based lookup. No additional formatting or constraints are added.

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 retrieves detailed information about a specific ClickUp task including attachments. It distinguishes from sibling `get_tasks` by specifying 'specific task' and highlighting name-based lookup, which is a unique feature not present in other 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 implies the tool is for single task retrieval by ID or name, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like `get_tasks` (for listing) or `update_task` (for modification). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the read operation and filters but does not detail pagination behavior, rate limits, or return format. The description is adequate but lacks depth needed for full transparency.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and key differentiator. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the main function and provides some cross-tool guidance. However, it does not explain pagination (page parameter), return format, or clarify the mutual exclusivity of listId and listName. For a tool with 17 parameters, more completeness would be helpful.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about name-based lookup but does not significantly elaborate on the many filter parameters beyond grouping them as 'optional filters.' The schema already describes each parameter sufficiently.

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 it gets tasks from a ClickUp list with optional filters. It also highlights a key differentiator: direct name-based lookup without needing the list ID, distinguishing it from sibling tools that require IDs or create lists.

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 provides usage guidance by mentioning name-based lookup as an alternative to using list IDs, and suggests creating the list if it doesn't exist using specific sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other sibling tools like get_task or create_bulk_tasks.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool 'gets' the hierarchy, implying a read operation, but does not mention potential large response sizes, rate limits, or any side effects. Minimal transparency.

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 concise sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage instruction is appended without redundancy. Every sentence adds value. Minor formatting oddities do not detract.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return format or structure. It does not describe what the hierarchy looks like, whether it's paginated, or if it includes IDs. Adequate but missing return value expectations.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema documentation coverage (vacuously). Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since none exist.

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 retrieves the complete hierarchy of spaces, folders, and lists. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that create or manage individual items.

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 provides an explicit precondition: check chat history for names/IDs first, and use this tool as a fallback. This guides the agent on when to invoke it, though it doesn't compare to specific sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description partially carries the burden. It reveals name-based lookup behavior but omits details about error handling, permission requirements, side effects, or return values.

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 with two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant 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?

The tool has 5 optional parameters and no output schema. The description is minimal and does not address behavior when conflicting identifiers are used, resolution logic, or what the tool returns, leaving gaps for an agent.

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%, and the description adds a general statement about name-based lookup but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already conveys for each parameter.

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 action ('move a task to a different list') and highlights a key feature (name-based lookup, no IDs needed). It distinctly positions itself among sibling tools that handle creation, deletion, duplication, or updates of tasks.

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 implies usage for moving tasks but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like update_task. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description should disclose mutation behavior and side effects. Only states 'Update an existing task' without detailing permissions, error handling, or behavior on name clashes. Insufficient for a mutation lacking 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?

Two sentences (28 words) efficiently convey main purpose and key feature. No fluff, front-loaded.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should cover more context (e.g., response format, error cases, partial update behavior). Current description is too sparse for a complex update tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions. Tool description adds value by highlighting name-based lookup capability and the optionality of taskId/taskName, going beyond schema defaults.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('existing task in ClickUp') with a distinctive feature ('name-based lookup'). Distinguishes from siblings like create_task, delete_task, get_task.

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?

Mentions name-based lookup as a convenience feature, implying when to use it (when task name is known). However, no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives like create_task for new tasks.

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