export_container

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

The description states 'This is a read-only operation,' which is a key behavioral disclosure. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and this disclosure is valuable. It does not cover performance, rate limits, or permission requirements, but it adequately informs the agent of the tool's safety profile.

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 very concise, consisting of three sentences. The first sentence immediately states the action and output, followed by details on returns and a read-only note with use cases. There is no unnecessary information.

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 tool has 4 parameters (one with enum) and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview but lacks details on the format parameter options and the exact structure of the returned JSON. It does list what is returned, which is helpful, but an agent may need more detail to correctly invoke the tool, especially for non-default formats.

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 the 'format' parameter has a description). The tool description does not explain the parameters beyond naming the resource (workspace). The 'format' parameter enum values (full, summary, names_only) are not clarified in the description, which could mislead an agent about available formats. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 exports a full GTM workspace summary as structured JSON and lists the returned components (tags, triggers, variables, folders, built-in variables). The verb 'export' and resource 'container workspace' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings, none of which are named 'export'.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for documentation, auditing, or feeding container data to other tools,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use or name alternative tools, which would make it more complete.

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