gtm_list

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are intentionally trimmed summaries to keep context small, and the returned `path` is the linking mechanism to subsequent calls. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the secondary note about `path` feeding subsequent calls earns its place by clarifying the tool's role in the broader workflow.

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 combination of the description, rich input schema with explicit hierarchy walk, annotations, and output schema fully equips an agent to invoke this tool correctly. The description communicates the essential workflow (list -> navigate deeper or fetch full detail) without needing to restate structured field meanings.

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%, with parameter descriptions already explaining `entity_type`, `parent`, `full`, and `page_token`. The description adds context about path reuse but does not need to; the schema carries the parameter semantics adequately.

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 action ('List Google Tag Manager entities') and the key scoping constraint ('one hierarchy level at a time'). It also distinguishes itself from gtm_get by positioning the list output as trimmed summaries that feed into full-detail retrieval.

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 explicitly tells the agent that each item's `path` can be used either for a deeper gtm_list call or for gtm_get full detail, which is strong routing guidance. It does not explicitly say 'do not use this for full entity details,' but the contrast with gtm_get and the 'trimmed summaries' wording make the intended usage clear.

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