test_webhook

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the external-effect and repeat-safety profile comes for free. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return payload (HTTP status code and response time), which is the key thing an agent needs to interpret results.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it does, what it returns, and how to scope the target. The purpose is front-loaded and nothing is padded.

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?

With one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential contract, including the return values the schema cannot express. It does not mention failure modes (e.g., what a non-2xx status implies) or any prerequisite like a previously configured webhook.

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% and the single agent_id parameter is already documented in the schema. The description restates the same agent-level vs project-level semantics, adding emphasis but no new meaning.

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 ('send a test event to verify a webhook'), and the scope distinction (agent-level vs project-level) sets it apart from get_webhook, set_webhook, delete_webhook, and list_webhook_deliveries without opening any schema.

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?

Makes the usage condition explicit: use it to verify a webhook is working, and the agent_id-omit rule tells the caller exactly which webhook gets tested. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or stating when not to use it.

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