list_gtm_versions

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it lists only published versions, returns headers with specific fields (version_id, name, entity counts), and implies timestamp information exists for correlation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, with the purpose stated directly in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. No verbose or redundant language, excellent front-loading.

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 3 optional parameters and an output schema. Description explains return structure (headers) and suggests a workflow, but does not clarify how parameters affect results (e.g., filtering by account/container, pagination with page_size). Missing parameter explanations reduce completeness.

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 not explain parameters (page_size, gtm_account_id, gtm_container_id). Default values are present in schema but no guidance on their role or filtering behavior. The description fails to add necessary meaning beyond parameter names.

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 lists published GTM version history, sorted newest first. It distinguishes from siblings like get_gtm_version which retrieves full version content.

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 provides a concrete use case: correlating a metric drop with a recent publish by fetching versions and then calling get_gtm_version for details. This explicitly guides when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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