Gtm.List Containers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states that this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated or truncated, what permissions are required, or whether soft-deleted containers are included — it only implies safety via the verb 'List'.

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?

One short sentence with zero padding and the scoping constraint front-loaded alongside the verb. It is efficient, though the terseness is arguably part of the under-specification problem rather than a virtue.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple one-parameter list. Still missing for an agent to call it confidently are the account_path format and any pagination behavior — modest but real gaps for a read tool with no annotations.

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% and the single parameter 'account_path' has no documented format. The description only restates the parameter name ('account path') without giving an example format such as 'accounts/12345', so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('List containers') plus the scoping constraint ('under an account path'), which implicitly places it as a child of gtm.list_accounts rather than a sibling of gtm.list_tags or gtm.list_workspaces. It never names an alternative explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the hierarchy rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The phrase 'under an account path' does imply the prerequisite that an account path must be known first (presumably from gtm.list_accounts), which is a weak but real usage signal.

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