gtm_list_workspaces

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that listing is read-only, non-destructive, or safe to call, nor does it mention authentication, pagination, or error behaviors. The workspace concept explanation adds context but not tool-behavior transparency.

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 definition is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The added context about workspaces and the default workspace earns its place by orienting the agent to the domain, though the final recommendation about creating workspaces is slightly tangential to the listing operation itself.

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 tool with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and two optional-looking parameters, the description does not sufficiently explain how to invoke it correctly. The output schema covers return values, but the absence of parameter guidance and explicit usage context leaves an agent uncertain about what to pass and when to call this tool.

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 explain account_id or container_id beyond the phrase 'in a container.' This gives a hint that container_id is the scoping parameter, but it does not clarify whether either parameter is required, how they relate, or what formats are expected. The description must compensate more given the empty schema descriptions.

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 clearly identifies the verb ('List'), the resource ('workspaces'), and the scope ('in a container'). This cleanly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like gtm_list_containers and gtm_list_versions without needing to inspect schemas.

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 useful context about workspaces being isolated change sets and recommends creating a dedicated workspace, but it does not explicitly state when to use this listing tool versus alternatives such as gtm_create_workspace, gtm_workspace_status, or gtm_sync_workspace. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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