Get GoHighLevel Contact Tasks

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

Annotations already declare this tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description merely restates the API endpoint and confirms the listing behavior, adding no additional behavioral context such as pagination handling, data freshness, or response size limits. With strong annotations, the description adds marginal value.

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 9 words, front-loading the action and resource. 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 simple list tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is adequately complete. It confirms the operation and endpoint, leaving parameter details to the schema. No output schema exists, but the return format is partially addressed via the response_format parameter in the schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on the parameters beyond the endpoint path; all parameter details are already in the schema. No additional semantic value is provided.

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 ('List') and the resource ('tasks for a contact'), using the API endpoint pattern to specify scope. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on listing rather than creating or modifying 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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghl_get_contact_notes or ghl_create_contact_task. The usage is implied by the name and endpoint, but no direct comparison or conditional advice is given.

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