List GTM bulk-change templates

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 useful context about what the listing exposes (constraints, documentation, verification state), but it does not disclose further behavioral details such as pagination, filtering behavior, or any governance-specific caveats.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the action, resource, and output categories without redundant wording. Every phrase contributes useful information.

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 is simple and annotations cover safety, but without an output schema and with 0% parameter documentation, the agent is left without enough detail about what values to supply or what the response shape is. The description offers only a high-level summary of return content.

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 mention 'operation' or 'platformKey' at all. The parameter names give only weak hints, and an agent cannot determine expected values, whether they are filters, or how they affect the listing. The description fails to compensate for the absent schema documentation.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'governed mass-change templates', while also naming the returned content categories: constraints, documentation, and verification state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gtm_generate_bulk_template and gtm_validate_bulk_change.

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 listing verb implies when to use it, and the resource scope is clear, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over generate/validate tools or any stated exclusions. Usage context is largely inferred rather than stated.

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