gtm_get_live_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing safety and side effects. It states 'The version currently serving live traffic,' which implies a read operation, but it never explicitly says it is safe, read-only, or what permissions are needed. It also doesn't describe the output beyond 'version_id', leaving behavior vague.

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 core fact front-loaded in the first: 'The version currently serving live traffic.' The second sentence provides practical guidance without repeating the purpose. No filler or redundant content.

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 simple read, the description covers the basic 'what' and one use case, but it lacks any parameter explanation and behavioral safety detail. An output schema exists, but that doesn't compensate for the complete absence of parameter semantics and only a vague promise of output. The tool may be simple, but the description leaves too many gaps for an agent to call it correctly without further assumptions.

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 mentions neither account_id nor container_id at all. The agent is left to infer what these IDs are, how they relate to the tool, or how to obtain them. The description adds zero meaning beyond the bare property names in the schema.

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 identifies the resource and purpose: 'The version currently serving live traffic.' The word 'live' distinguishes it from the more generic gtm_get_version, but it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a direct action verb and does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools. It is clear enough but not as explicit as it could be.

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 clear use case: 'Compare this against your workspace before publishing, and note the version_id so you have a rollback target.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (before publishing) and why, but it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it.

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