List workspaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: workspaces represent unpublished drafts and the free tier caps them at 3. It says nothing about pagination or result ordering, but with an output schema present the bar is lower.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the resource definition front-loaded and the identifier formats following. The telegraphic style ('Container as public id...') is dense but each clause carries information; a short lead-in verb would improve readability without adding length.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns at a conceptual level, the required input and all its accepted formats, and the nature of workspaces. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0% – the single 'container' parameter has no description in the schema – so the description must carry the burden, and it does: it enumerates accepted identifier forms (GTM-XXXXXXX, a linked G-/AW- destination id, or the full accounts/<a>/containers/<c> API path). That is meaningful added semantics beyond the bare string type.

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 names the exact resource (workspaces) and its parent scope (of a container), which is specific enough to distinguish it from gtm_list_containers or gtm_list_environments. The verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated, and it never explicitly contrasts with gtm_get_workspace_status or gtm_create_workspace, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to call this versus siblings such as gtm_get_workspace_status or gtm_list_containers. The parenthetical 'unpublished drafts; free tier allows 3' gives useful ambient context for interpreting results, but it does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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