gtm_get_trigger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Gets' clearly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but it does not describe what a trigger configuration contains, whether the trigger must exist, or what error/failure modes may occur. This is minimally adequate for a simple getter but leaves several behavioral details unstated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It conveys the operation, target resource, and domain in minimal space. Every word earns its place.

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 four-parameter get operation, the description and schema are mostly sufficient. There is no output schema and the description does not elaborate on the exact shape of the returned trigger configuration, but the phrase 'trigger configuration' reasonably implies the return value. Minor gaps exist around where the required IDs come from, but overall the definition is complete enough for this straightforward getter.

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 100%, with each parameter documented as an ID (e.g., 'GTM Account ID'). The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema's field names and types. Since the schema already fully documents the parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Gets'), a clear resource ('specific trigger configuration'), and identifies the domain ('from GTM'). The word 'specific' clearly differentiates it from gtm_list_triggers and other fetch operations in the sibling set. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gtm_list_triggers or gtm_get_tag. It does not mention prerequisites such as obtaining the triggerId from a list operation, nor does it exclude cases where another tool would be more appropriate. Usage must be inferred entirely from the word 'specific.'

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