gtm_get_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Get' and 'full content' without explaining what that content includes, whether authentication or connection parameters are needed, or what the response structure looks like. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 alone must support correct invocation. It fails to explain when to use this over gtm_list_versions, what 'full content' actually contains, or what the optional connection_id and session_token parameters are for. The description is adequate for recognizing the tool's purpose but not for fully guiding correct usage.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. While account_id, container_id, and version_id are fairly self-explanatory from their names, connection_id and session_token are not explained. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a single GTM container version's full content'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like gtm_list_versions (which lists versions) and gtm_get_container (which gets a container, not a version). The meaning is immediately 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 word 'single' implies this tool is for retrieving one specific version rather than listing versions, and 'full content' suggests it provides more detail than a list. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any comparison to alternatives like gtm_list_versions.

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