List project webhooks

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a valuable behavioral guarantee beyond annotations: 'Secret tokens and secret custom headers are never exposed.' This is useful security context.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a valuable security note. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return-value details, and the annotations cover safety. The description adds the security-relevant redaction behavior. For a simple paginated list tool, this is reasonably complete, though it could mention pagination defaults or explicit sibling alternatives.

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 only 33%, with only 'project' described. The description does not compensate by explaining pagination semantics for 'page' or 'per_page', nor does it clarify any parameter-specific behavior beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List project webhook configurations.' It clearly distinguishes this from related tools like get_project_webhook and list_project_webhook_events by focusing on configurations, not a single webhook or events.

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 intended usage is implied by the purpose statement: use this when needing all webhook configurations for a project. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools such as get_project_webhook or list_project_webhook_events.

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