List triggers in a workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the output includes type and firing conditions, which is a minor behavioral detail, but it does not disclose pagination behavior or return format beyond that. Since annotations carry most of the burden, this is adequate but not rich, warranting a 3.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative addressing modes are stated efficiently. Every clause earns its place, making it a model of concise structure.

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 6 parameters (0 required) with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, the two addressing modes, and the read-only nature. It hints at the output content (type and firing conditions) but does not detail pagination or the exact return shape. However, the schema documents limit and pageToken, and the tool is a simple list operation, so the description is largely complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description adds value by clarifying that `path` is an alternative to the combination of `accountId`, `containerId`, and `workspaceId`, which is a relationship not evident from the schema alone. This helps the agent understand the parameter grouping and choose the right addressing mode.

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 clearly states the action ('lists triggers') and the resource ('a Tag Manager workspace'), and specifies the output fields ('type and firing conditions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gtm_list_tags and gtm_list_variables by naming the specific resource (triggers). The alternative addressing modes are also mentioned, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description provides context that this is a read-only listing tool but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings (e.g., when you need trigger definitions vs. tags or variables). The purpose implies usage, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or exclusion guidance, so it falls at the 'implied usage' level.

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