gtm_list_entities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses workspace scoping, case-insensitive name filtering, and the compact-versus-full response modes, plus why full mode matters for updates. It does not mention pagination or how parent IDs are resolved, but the behavior is mostly self-evident.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by an Args section with focused explanations. Every sentence adds useful information, including the important workflow note about update_entity needing the full object.

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?

Given the output schema and the enum-like list of entity types, the description provides enough context for most invocation workflows. The absence of guidance on the optional parent ID fields and pagination is the only notable gap.

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 is responsible for parameter meaning. It adds strong semantics for entity_type, name_contains, and full, including allowed values and case behavior, but it does not explain account_id, container_id, or workspace_id, leaving some parameters to inference.

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 first sentence states exactly what the tool does: list entities of any type in a workspace. The enumerated entity_type values make its scope concrete and distinguish it from sibling list tools like gtm_list_workspaces and gtm_list_containers.

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 gives actionable context, especially for the full argument, telling the agent to use full mode when copying an entity because update_entity needs the complete body. It does not explicitly say when to prefer alternatives like gtm_get_entity, but the guidance for the common workflows is clear.

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