gtm_list_containers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains that container_id and public_id refer to different things and that other tools expect container_id. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, default behavior when account_id is omitted, or pagination behavior.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence clearly states the operation, and the second provides a high-value warning about the two id types. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 has an output schema, so the basic listing operation is understandable. However, the description leaves account_id semantics unexplained and does not connect this tool to gtm_list_accounts for obtaining account IDs or to gtm_get_container for container details. These are meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to chain calls.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented account_id parameter. It does not explain what account_id means, whether it is optional in practice, or what happens when it is null. The phrase 'in an account' is the only hint, leaving the parameter largely underspecified.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List containers in an account.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gtm_list_accounts (accounts vs containers) and gtm_get_container (list all vs get one). The added note about id types further clarifies what this tool returns.

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 first sentence implies the tool is for when you need a list of containers in an account, but it never explicitly states when to use this versus alternatives like gtm_get_container or gtm_list_accounts. The id note gives useful downstream context but does not provide explicit exclusions or routing between siblings.

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