ghl_project_get_task_lists

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds the OAuth scope (projects/tasks.readonly) and states the RBAC-filtering behavior of task batch-get. Much of the preamble (lexorank, recurring-task fields, delete cascades) is not about this endpoint, so the added context is diluted.

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 tool's actual purpose is buried behind a long block of project-management boilerplate about batch-get RBAC, lexorank, recurring-task payloads and delete cascades that has no bearing on listing a task's lists. Roughly half the text is irrelevant to this endpoint, so it is neither front-loaded nor waste-free.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing the response shape (rows, isHome: true, properties.primaryListId) and the auth scope. Endpoint and version are given. Missing only guidance on when to prefer this over sibling read tools.

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%, including taskId and the locationId APP-vs-OAuth nuance, so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about the parameters, which is acceptable at full coverage — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get Lists For A Task' / 'Returns every list the task belongs to') and distinguishes it from adjacent tools like get_list, list_list_tasks and set_task_home_list by explaining the isHome marker and that Move Task changes it. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

It implies when the result matters (home list identification, relation to the home-list PUT) but never names an alternative or says when NOT to call it — e.g. vs ghl_project_get_task or ghl_project_get_list for a given list's tasks. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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