gtm_get_variable

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Gets' clearly implies a read-only fetch, but the description does not clarify what the returned configuration contains, how errors are handled, or whether this operates on the current workspace version.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource clearly, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 getter with four well-documented required parameters and a clear resource target, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks only a hint about where to obtain the variableId or what constitutes a 'variable configuration', but these are minor gaps for this tool's low complexity.

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%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, which is acceptable per the baseline for high schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Gets') and a clear resource ('specific variable configuration from GTM'), making the tool's basic purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from list-style siblings through the word 'specific', though it does not explicitly name any sibling tool.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many related GTM tools such as gtm_list_variables, gtm_get_tag, or gtm_get_trigger. An agent must infer the usage context from the tool name and schema alone.

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