gtm_list_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the operation is a read-only listing, but it does not mention pagination behavior despite the pageToken parameter, nor the effect of includeDeleted. The claim 'all container versions' is potentially misleading without addressing these behaviors.

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 concise sentence with no filler, which is easy to parse. However, it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters, undocumented optional fields, and no output schema, so the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 GTM version-listing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented optional parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not mention pagination, deleted-version inclusion, response shape, or how this tool relates to gtm_get_version and gtm_get_live_version, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it reliably.

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 50%, with pageToken and includeDeleted lacking any description, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It vaguely implies a container context through 'container versions' but does not explain the optional parameters or how accountId and containerId relate to the version listing.

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 operation ('Lists all container versions') and a specific resource ('container versions in GTM'), clearly identifying the tool's core function. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like gtm_get_version or gtm_get_live_version, but the plural 'all container versions' is distinguishable enough.

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_version, gtm_get_live_version, or gtm_list_workspaces. The description only restates the function and provides no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when another GTM listing tool would be more appropriate.

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