gtm_list_user_permissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verbs 'list' and 'auditing' imply a read-only, non-mutating operation, and mentioning access levels adds useful context. However, it does not explicitly address side effects, authentication prerequisites, or behavior with invalid or missing account IDs.

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 short sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add practical use cases. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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?

With only one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the main purpose and use cases adequately. It falls short by not explaining how account_id should be supplied or what omitting it means, and it does not point the agent to a sibling like gtm_list_accounts for discovering account IDs.

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?

The only parameter, account_id, has 0% schema description coverage and is not described in the tool description. The phrase 'this GTM account' gives some implicit connection, and 'account_id' is self-explanatory, but the description does not explain the ID format, whether it is required, or what happens when it is omitted.

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 exactly what the tool does: it lists who has access to a GTM account and at what level. This is a specific verb+resource and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like gtm_list_accounts, gtm_list_containers, and gtm_list_versions, which list different GTM resources.

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 clear use cases: confirming the service account is wired correctly and auditing who can publish. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent toward when this tool is appropriate.

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