gtm_list_triggers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Lists' does signal a non-destructive read operation, but the description does not mention pagination behavior (despite the pageToken parameter), what fields are returned, or whether 'all triggers' truly returns everything in one response. An agent could wrongly assume a single page contains the complete result set.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler words, efficiently conveying the action, resource, and scope. However, the extreme terseness means it forgoes the opportunity to add pagination or sibling-differentiation details that would carry more value.

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 straightforward list operation this is minimally adequate: required IDs are clearly documented and the resource is unambiguous. The notable gaps are the undisclosed pagination mechanism implied by pageToken and the absence of any contrast with gtm_get_trigger, which an agent must infer on its own.

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 75%, with accountId, containerId, and workspaceId each described as 'GTM ... ID', so the schema handles the core parameters. The description adds minimal parameter context beyond the workspace scope, and pageToken, the one undocumented parameter, is not addressed in either the schema or the description.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists'), a resource ('triggers'), and a scope ('in a GTM workspace'), which makes the core purpose immediately clear. The resource name naturally differentiates it from sibling list tools like gtm_list_tags and gtm_list_variables, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives like the strongest definitions do.

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 on when to use this tool versus gtm_get_trigger for a single trigger, nor any mention of pagination considerations that the pageToken parameter implies. The description gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name pattern.

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