gtm_get_live_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Gets' does convey that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is useful, but the description does not mention required permissions, behavior when no published version exists, or the shape of the returned version object.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the key distinction ('currently published (live)') appears immediately. Every word adds useful meaning.

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?

Given the low complexity (two required string parameters, no nested objects) and the clear purpose statement, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The main missing context is what exactly the returned live version object contains, but this is partially inferable from the tool's domain and name.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters completely, with descriptions for accountId and containerId. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies given the high schema description coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Gets') and a precise resource ('currently published (live) container version'), making the tool's function immediately clear. The word 'live' distinguishes it from sibling tools like gtm_get_version, which retrieves a specified version rather than the published one.

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 phrase 'currently published (live)' implies the tool is appropriate when the live container version is needed, but the description gives no explicit guidance about alternatives or exclusion cases. It does not mention, for example, using gtm_get_version to retrieve a specific historical version or gtm_list_versions to enumerate versions.

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