gtm_audit_container

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

The term 'audit' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no modifications are made. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, and while it suggests non-destructive behavior, it is not fully explicit about side effects.

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 highly concise, consisting of two short sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key output categories. No unnecessary words or repetition are present.

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 description lists specific issues the audit identifies, giving context about what the tool returns. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., report, list, JSON), which would enhance completeness given the lack of an output schema.

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 single parameter containerPath is clearly described as 'Optional local path to container export JSON file', providing precise meaning about its type and purpose. This fully covers the schema, leaving no ambiguity.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Runs') and resource ('Google Tag Manager container'), and lists concrete outputs (duplicate tags, missing triggers, unconsented tracking, heavy blocking scripts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gtm_deduplicate_tags or gtm_apply_consent_mode.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what the tool does, without stating scenarios where it is preferred over other GTM utilities, making it less helpful for usage decisions.

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