GTM workspace status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the exact return shape (workspaces, pending added/updated/deleted tags, triggers, variables, merge conflicts) and the constraint to use a non-default workspace for changes.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource being read, and the read-only caveat is placed last where it reads as a constraint. The first sentence is dense but every element earns its place by describing return content.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields in detail, and the annotations cover the safety profile. For a two-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only the maximum-workspace count and pagination nuance are left to the schema.

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%, with client_id and workspace_id both documented (including 'empty uses the only client' and 'empty lists every workspace'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: it returns the workspaces of the client's GTM container, enumerating the exact fields (id, name, default flag, server-created flag) plus pending changes and merge conflicts. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like gtm_inventory or gtm_versions without opening the schema.

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 closing clause 'Read only; use a non-default workspace for any change' gives clear read-versus-write context and a default-workspace caveat. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool (e.g. gtm_plan_workspace_create), so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.

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