gtm_list_triggers

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 only says 'list triggers' and does not mention the return format, pagination, authentication/session requirements, or whether all triggers are returned. The verb 'list' implies a read operation, but that inference is left to the agent.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral and parameter detail.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain the GTM hierarchy, the purpose of the optional connection/session parameters, or what the returned trigger list contains. An agent would need external knowledge to use it correctly.

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 provides no parameter-level meaning. The three required IDs (account_id, container_id, workspace_id) are not explained, and the ambiguous optional parameters connection_id and session_token are completely undocumented. The description adds no value beyond the raw schema titles.

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 ('List') and resource ('triggers') with a scope ('in a GTM workspace'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling list tools like gtm_list_tags, gtm_list_variables, or gtm_list_workspaces. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tool, but the purpose is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling list tools. The phrase 'in a GTM workspace' provides a scoping context but does not help an agent decide between gtm_list_tags, gtm_list_variables, gtm_list_versions, or gtm_list_triggers.

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