gtm_list_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds one genuinely useful trait — results include both published and draft versions — and 'List' implies a non-mutating read. But it says nothing about authentication expectations (connection_id/session_token), pagination, ordering, or what a 'version header' actually contains.

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?

A single nine-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler or restatement of the tool name. Every word earns its place, and brevity here does not harm clarity — the shortfalls are completeness issues, not conciseness issues.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should supply more context. It covers what the tool does but omits invocation-level details: the two auth-adjacent parameters are undocumented and there is no pointer to gtm_get_version as the companion operation for full version detail. The tool is simple, but the definition leaves real gaps for the agent to bridge.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only implicitly anchors container_id (via 'GTM container') and account_id. connection_id and session_token are entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent to guess their meaning, format, and necessity.

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 verb ('List'), a specific resource ('version headers' of a GTM container), and a useful scope qualifier ('published + drafts'). Within a sibling set that includes gtm_list_tags, gtm_list_workspaces, and gtm_get_version, this one is unambiguous: it is the list-versions operation, distinct from fetching a single version.

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 intended context is implied — you call this when you need version headers for a container identified by account_id and container_id. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of gtm_get_version as the alternative for full version payloads, and no exclusions stated.

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