gtm_list_variables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose pagination behavior despite the pageToken parameter, nor does it mention return shape, read-only status, or workspace-specific nuances. 'Lists all variables' is functionally clear but behaviorally thin.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource effectively.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must provide more context. It omits important operational details such as pagination via pageToken, what a successful response contains, and any prerequisites beyond the schema's required IDs. This is minimally informative for an agent selecting among many GTM tools.

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 75%; accountId, containerId, and workspaceId are described in the schema, but pageToken has no description. The description adds only the 'GTM workspace' scoping, which is already implied by the workspaceId parameter, so it does not meaningfully compensate for the undocumented pageToken.

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 ('Lists'), a clear resource ('all variables'), and a scope ('in a GTM workspace'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like gtm_list_triggers and gtm_get_variable.

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 alternatives such as gtm_get_variable for a specific variable, or how it relates to gtm_list_tags/gtm_list_triggers. No usage context or exclusions are provided.

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