List project webhook delivery events

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral constraints beyond annotations: body contents are never exposed, only presence/size metadata is returned, and header secrets are redacted. This is useful privacy and response-content transparency that annotations do not provide.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds meaningful context. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 5-parameter list tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and response limitations. It could mention pagination behavior or explicitly relate to get_project_webhook_event, but the provided information is sufficient for safe correct use.

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 60%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 'specific project webhook' and 'recent'. The schema already documents project, status, and webhook_id, but page and per_page are left undescribed in both schema and description. The description does not compensate for the incomplete parameter 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 clearly states the action ('List recent delivery events') and the resource scope ('for a specific project webhook'). It also distinguishes the tool's scope by noting that only presence and size metadata are returned and body contents are never exposed, which differentiates it from event-detail siblings like get_project_webhook_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 gives clear context: this is for listing recent delivery events for a given webhook, and the response limitation ('body contents are never exposed') tells agents when not to rely on this tool for full payloads. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the usage context is clear and not misleading.

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