GTM: Workspace status

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 without description help. The description usefully adds the compact-vs-full behavioral split and the fact that conflict/change detail is relative to the live version. It does not disclose whether unresolved conflicts block later operations or what conflict metadata looks like, so added value is moderate.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the usage trigger and the mode switch. The parenthetical field list is terse but efficient; nothing is wasted, though the phrasing is slightly compressed to the point of being clipped.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so for both modes. Remaining gaps — conflict severity, pagination, or error behavior when the workspace is out of sync — are minor for a read-only status tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns an extra point by explaining what full=true actually returns ('complete entities incl. code') and what the default compact form contains (kind of change, type, ID, name) — meaning the schema's bare 'Default false' does not convey.

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: 'Shows the changes and conflicts of a workspace compared to the live version', which is distinct from sibling listers like gtm_list_entities or gtm_validate_workspace. It also sketches the returned fields. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, which keeps it just below a 5.

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?

'Check before gtm_create_version' gives a concrete when-to-use trigger tied to a named sibling. There is no when-not guidance (e.g. use gtm_validate_workspace instead when you want pass/fail validation), so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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