gtm_get_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Gets' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention authentication needs, error behavior for invalid IDs, rate limits, or the expected shape of the return value. Without an output schema, this leaves meaningful ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the core meaning and it avoids restating schema 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?

This is a simple single-resource read operation, and the three required ID parameters are well documented in the schema, so a caller can invoke it correctly. However, the description does not specify what fields the 'detailed information' contains, and the absence of an output schema makes the return value less predictable. It is minimally viable but not rich.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema as GTM Account ID, GTM Container ID, and GTM Workspace ID, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, but none is required for these straightforward identifier fields.

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 clear action verb ('Gets') and names the resource ('detailed information about a specific GTM workspace'). The word 'specific' signals a single-resource lookup and helps distinguish it from gtm_list_workspaces, though it does not explicitly name siblings or define what 'detailed information' includes.

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 guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as gtm_list_workspaces or gtm_get_live_version. The description only implies a single-workspace lookup; it does not say to use the list endpoint for discovery or mention exclusions.

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