list_webhook_deliveries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the core output contents: delivery attempts, status codes, and errors. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, time window for 'recent,' or what happens when no attempts exist. These are meaningful gaps for a listing tool.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The primary function and output contents are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds practical diagnostic value. Every word earns its place.

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 description covers the essential purpose and output, but with no output schema and no annotations, more is needed. It does not explain the exact return shape, how 'recent' is bounded, how limit affects results, or error behavior. For a simple two-parameter list tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the resource is a 'webhook endpoint,' which gives meaning to endpoint_id. The optional 'limit' parameter is not described beyond its schema name and min/max constraints, so the description only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'list recent delivery attempts for a webhook endpoint.' It also tells what the output contains ('status codes and errors') and gives a concrete diagnostic purpose, distinguishing 'we never sent it' from 'your endpoint returned 500.' This makes the tool's role unambiguous and distinct from the provided sibling tools.

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 provides a clear context for when to use the tool: diagnosing webhook delivery failures by inspecting delivery attempts. It says 'This is how to tell...' which is an explicit use-case signal. It does not enumerate exclusions or alternatives, but none of the sibling tools appear to cover webhook deliveries, so this is a minor gap.

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