GTM: Workspaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful downstream fact that returned workspaceIds are required by write tools, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what fields each workspace entry carries.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste; the purpose is front-loaded and the prerequisite note follows. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For a simple, read-only two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and downstream use adequately. It falls short on documenting the two required identifiers and on any hint of the response shape, which is the main remaining 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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does not: neither accountId nor containerId is explained beyond the incidental word "container." An agent must infer both are GTM identifiers from domain knowledge alone, with no stated format or hierarchy.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Lists the workspaces of a container." This is immediately distinguishable from siblings such as gtm_create_workspace or gtm_workspace_status, and the scope (one container) is explicit.

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?

Adds a genuine when-to-use signal: it is the prerequisite step for obtaining a workspaceId consumed by GTM write tools. It gives no explicit exclusions or alternatives, but for a list-prerequisite tool the context is clear.

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