discord_list_webhooks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that tokens are never returned, which is valuable. However, it omits context like the 'Manage Webhooks' permission requirement, potential pagination, or that the operation is read-only (likely). The token note is only a partial disclosure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a useful security caveat. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 listing tool with an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It misses the mutual exclusivity of parameters, the required permission, and any note about result size or pagination. However, the output schema covers return values, and the tool is not overly complex, so a 3 is fair.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It says 'for a guild or a specific channel', implying you provide either guild_id or channel_id, but it does not clarify that they are mutually exclusive, that at least one is needed, or the exact behavior if both are provided. The schema allows both to be null, so the description leaves ambiguity, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 webhooks') and the scope ('for a guild or a specific channel'), which is specific and unambiguous. It also adds a security note about tokens, distinguishing it from webhook creation/editing tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like discord_get_webhook, so it's not 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?

The description implies usage: list webhooks when you need to see all hooks for a guild or channel. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over discord_get_webhook (for a single webhook) or when to avoid it, nor does it mention any prerequisites like permissions. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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