gtm_workspace_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that a non-empty merge_conflicts list means the live container moved underneath you, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the output schema contains beyond the conflict list.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the actionable conflict-resolution guidance is placed at the end. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 description explains the tool's role in the version-creation workflow and the conflict signal, which is the most important context. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, an agent may not know how to fill the three optional parameters or what the full output structure looks like. The output schema exists, so return values are partially covered, but parameter usage remains a 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%, and the description does not explain the three parameters (account_id, container_id, workspace_id) at all. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no meaning about how they relate to the workspace being queried or whether they are optional in combination.

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 states the tool reports uncommitted changes and conflicts in a workspace, and frames it as the diff to review before creating a version. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the purpose is specific enough to distinguish it from gtm_list_workspaces and gtm_get_live_version.

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 clear context: use this before creating a version, and if merge_conflicts is non-empty, call sync_workspace to resolve. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but the workflow guidance is strong and actionable.

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