Get project webhook

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

The description adds a crucial behavioral detail: 'Secret tokens and secret custom headers are never exposed.' This goes beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, informing the agent that even though it's a read operation, sensitive data will be masked. This is valuable context for the agent's expectations.

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: the first states the purpose, the second adds a critical constraint. Every word earns its place, with no fluff. Excellent front-loading.

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 read operation with a well-defined schema, output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient. It explains the purpose and the key secret-masking behavior, leaving nothing critical unaddressed.

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 input schema describes both parameters fully: 'project' is 'GitLab project ID or full path such as group/project.' and 'webhook_id' is 'Project-scoped webhook ID.' Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description need not add more, and it doesn't. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'project webhook configuration', and the scope 'by ID'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_project_webhooks (which lists multiple) and get_project_webhook_event (which fetches an event).

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 clearly implies it is used to fetch a single webhook configuration when you know its ID, but it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives or when not to use it. The phrase 'Get one' gives clear context, and the tool name contrasts with list_project_webhooks, so the agent can infer the appropriate use case.

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