Get GTM Workspace Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context — that results are relative to 'the last container version' and that merge conflicts are surfaced — but does not disclose output shape, size limits, or authorization nuances. No contradiction with 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the verb and resource immediately and packs the scope definition ('since the last container version') and conflict detection into one clause. Every word earns its place with no fluff 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?

For a simple read-only status tool with three fully documented parameters and strong annotations, the description adequately conveys return semantics (pending changes + merge conflicts) despite lacking an output schema. Minor gap: no mention of how this status relates to the sync/publish workflow or what to do after conflicts are detected.

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% for all three required parameters (account_id, container_id, workspace_id), so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description modestly adds context by implying workspace_id selects the workspace whose changes are inspected, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') with a clearly defined resource: pending changes in a workspace, scoped as 'entities added, updated, or deleted since the last container version', plus merge conflicts. This distinguishes it from siblings like gtm_list_workspaces (listing workspaces) and gtm_sync_workspace (applying changes) since it targets status/conflict inspection.

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 intended use case is implied rather than stated directly: check for pending changes or merge conflicts before versioning. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given, and no alternative tools (e.g., gtm_sync_workspace or gtm_get_live_version) are named for comparison, so the agent must infer placement in the workflow.

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