Webhook Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of conveying behavior. The verb 'Get' and the word 'status' imply a read-only, non-mutating operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or prerequisites. It provides useful content detail but leaves some safety inference to the agent.

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?

A single sentence that starts with the action and object, then concisely adds the two key data categories. No filler, redundancy, or unnecessary explanation.

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 zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential information: what status is returned and the included details. It does not specify the response shape, but the simplicity of a status read and the explicit content list make this sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about inputs. The empty schema already covers 100% of parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('webhook receiver and relay status'), and adds concrete detail about the returned data (configured gateway, event counts). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like webhook_list_events, webhook_get_event, and webhook_set_gateway.

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 phrase 'Get webhook receiver and relay status' makes the primary use case obvious: checking the current state of webhook infrastructure. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough that an agent can select it appropriately among the event-focused siblings.

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