gtm_get

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful disclosure beyond those: requesting a version path returns the entire published container, which may be large. That is relevant operational context an agent cannot infer from the 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?

Two short sentences: the first states the core operation with examples, the second calls out an important size caveat. Every sentence earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter GET-style tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, the path provenance, and the one major behavioral caveat. Nothing needed to select and invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the path format and examples. The description adds value by framing the path as selecting one complete entity and by warning that a version path yields a large published-container payload, a parameter-specific semantic.

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 the action ('Fetch'), the object ('one GTM entity's complete JSON'), and the selection mechanism ('by its path'), and it lists the entity types (tag, trigger, variable, version). This clearly differentiates it from gtm_list, which would enumerate entities rather than fetch a single one.

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 conveys that this tool is for retrieving a specific entity when the full path is already known, and the schema reinforces that the path comes from a gtm_list result. It does not explicitly name gtm_list as the alternative for discovering paths, so it stops short of a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement.

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