Gtm.List Versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but the phrase 'version headers' does add real information — it signals a lightweight header listing rather than full version bodies. It says nothing about read-only semantics, pagination, ordering, or permissions, which is a notable gap for an unannotated tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the key scope qualifier ('under a container path') is present. It is efficient rather than padded, though brevity here contributes to the coverage gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

The existence of an output schema excuses explaining return values, but for a tool whose only parameter has 0% documentation and which has no annotations, the description should specify the expected container_path form. As written, an agent could plausibly call it with the wrong identifier type.

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 required parameter container_path has no format guidance anywhere. The description merely echoes 'container path' without saying whether it is a numeric container ID, a resource name like accounts/{id}/containers/{id}, or a path array, so it adds almost no meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 ('List') and a specific resource ('container version headers') scoped to a container path, so it is clearly distinguishable from gtm.list_containers and the mutating gtm.create_version / gtm.publish_version siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read counterpart to create_version/publish_version. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a container path obtained from gtm.list_containers) or of alternatives.

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