folders_entities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful information about automatic pagination ('Automatically follows pagination to return all entities'), but it does not disclose read-only nature, required permissions, or output format. The pagination detail is a positive, but overall disclosure is minimal.

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 concise sentences that front-load the primary action and entity types, then add the pagination behavior. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 33% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core action and pagination, but lacks parameter context, return value structure, and permission requirements. It is acceptable for a simple list operation but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 33%, and the description does not explain any parameters. It mentions 'specific GTM folder' which implies folderId, but accountId, containerId, and workspaceId are left undocumented. maxPages and pageToken have schema descriptions, but the tool description does not provide additional meaning or compensate for the low 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 action (List), the resource (entities: tags, triggers, variables), and the scope (within a specific GTM folder). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tags_list, triggers_list, and variables_list, which list individual entity types without folder filtering.

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 implies usage when you need all entity types within a folder, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear enough for a basic understanding, but lacks explicit guidance.

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