List variables

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context by explaining that omitting workspace_id triggers a default-workspace lookup that is cached, and by documenting accepted container id formats.

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 description is compact and front-loads the resource and output summary, then moves to container and workspace argument details. Every sentence adds useful context without repetition or filler.

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 annotations cover safety. However, with six parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete for filtering and pagination behavior even though it handles the required container and workspace_id.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It covers container formats and workspace_id default behavior well, but leaves type, limit, offset, and name_contains unexplained; the type-code parenthetical hints at variable types but does not clearly define the type filter.

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 specifies the resource as user-defined variables and adds type-code context, distinguishing it from built-in variables such as gtm_list_built_in_variables. It is clear what is being listed, though it does not explicitly say 'list' or distinguish from gtm_get_variable.

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 description explains container and workspace argument formats but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gtm_get_variable or gtm_list_built_in_variables. There are no when/when-not conditions or exclusions.

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