gtm_list_containers

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. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention authentication requirements, response shape, pagination, or any other behavioral details an agent would need.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is concise and easy to parse, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral and contextual details.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to understand return values or authentication expectations. It tells the agent this tool lists containers and requires account context, but leaves important operational details absent.

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 does little to compensate. The phrase 'in a GTM account' gives some meaning to account_id, but the connection_id and session_token parameters remain entirely unexplained.

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 names a specific operation—listing containers—and scopes it to a GTM account, which is clear enough to distinguish it from tools like gtm_get_container or gtm_list_accounts. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the other gtm_list_* tools, but the resource and verb are precise.

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 about when to use this tool versus gtm_get_container, gtm_list_workspaces, or other sibling tools. The description simply states what the tool does without providing context for choosing it or excluding alternatives.

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