audit_container

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and never modifies anything, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits other important details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens when the workspace is not found.

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 extremely concise (two sentences), immediately states the purpose, and front-loads the key action and result. Every word adds value; no redundancy or 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does mention 'structured findings with severity levels', but does not detail the structure (e.g., array of objects with specific fields). For a tool with 4 parameters and moderate complexity, the description is minimally complete but could elaborate on the output format.

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 only 25% (only includeInfo has a description). The tool description adds no semantic meaning for the required parameters (accountId, containerId, workspaceId), which are critical for invocation. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 verb ('Inspect'), resource ('GTM workspace'), and specific purpose ('common analytics implementation issues'), with explicit output format ('structured findings with severity levels'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like workspace_get_status which focus on workspace metadata rather than analytics quality.

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 indicates when to use (inspecting analytics implementation issues) and notes it's read-only, but provides no comparison to alternatives like workspace_get_status, workspace_quick_preview, or other audit-like tools. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool.

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