ghl_get_contact_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention read-only semantics, pagination, ordering, permissions, or whether completed tasks are included. The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name, offering no additional behavioral insight.

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 a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and directly states the core function, though it could be expanded to include necessary behavioral context without becoming overly verbose.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and any parameter details, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior. It does not address filtering, pagination, return fields, or error scenarios, making it incomplete for a production context.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain the contactId parameter beyond implying it is the contact identifier. The phrase 'for a contact' adds minimal context but no details about format, requirements, or behavior.

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 specifies the action ('Get all tasks') and the target resource ('for a contact'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_get_contact_notes or ghl_get_contact_appointments. It is specific, action-oriented, 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use ghl_create_contact_task or how it differs from ghl_get_contact_notes. The description simply states what it does without context or exclusions.

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