List Tag Manager workspaces

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds domain behavior the annotations cannot convey: workspaces represent drafts, most containers have a single Default Workspace, and multiple appear only with parallel drafts — real context for interpreting results. It does not mention pagination, permissions, or quota behavior, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the operation and then the payload/routing detail. No filler sentences; the API doc link is a compact reference rather than prose padding.

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?

Low-complexity read tool with an output schema, so return-shape explanation is not required, yet the description still names the returned fields. Combined with the annotation safety profile and the sibling routing cue, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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 100%: both parameters (gtm_account_id, gtm_container_id) are documented in the schema with their config-fallback default behavior. The description adds nothing about these inputs — it refers to account/container only implicitly through the hierarchy — so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource with scope ('List workspaces (drafts) under a GTM container') and a clarifying gloss on what a workspace is. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling it feeds (get_gtm_workspace_diff) and from list_gtm_accounts/list_gtm_containers, which sit above it in the hierarchy.

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?

It tells the agent what the output enables — 'the IDs are what get_gtm_workspace_diff takes' — which is a clear routing cue to the next tool in the workflow, and it sets expectations that most containers have only a Default Workspace. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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