Get contact task

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds mild context (single-item retrieval scoped to a contact) but discloses nothing beyond that; this is acceptable for a simple read operation with annotations present.

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?

A single nine-word sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and contains zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description is largely sufficient. Minor gaps remain: there is no output schema, so the return shape is undocumented, and error behavior (e.g., task not found) is not addressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'by id' maps to taskId and 'on a contact' maps to contactId implicitly, giving partial semantic meaning, but the mapping is not explicit and neither parameter's format or purpose is spelled out.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a resource ('a single task on a contact'), and a scope ('by id'). This effectively distinguishes it from ghl_list_contact_tasks for the agent, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 is given on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as ghl_list_contact_tasks or ghl_get_contact. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or references to related tools.

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