List webhooks

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

Annotations are provided: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds the scoping detail that this lists per-project endpoints filtered to events/notifications delivery. However, it doesn't describe return format, ordering, or pagination behavior which would be valuable for a list operation. Since annotations already cover the safety profile, the description adds modest value but is not rich.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb+resource, and wastes no words. It efficiently captures what the tool does without redundancy. It could be slightly more expandable with pagination guidance, but for what it contains, it is clean and appropriately sized.

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 list endpoint with no output schema and moderate complexity (3 params, pagination), the description is adequate but thin. It identifies the resource and scope, but doesn't explain the limit/cursor pagination mechanism or return shape. With no output schema, some guidance on what is returned would improve completeness. The annotation coverage partially offsets the gap.

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% - only project_id has a description in the schema. The description does not compensate for the undocumented limit and cursor parameters; it doesn't explain that these are pagination controls. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. With partial coverage, more description compensation would be expected.

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 clear verb+resource: 'list the per-project HTTP URLs that notifications and events are delivered to.' It specifies the resource (webhook endpoints), the scope (per-project), and the content (HTTP URLs for notifications/events). While siblings exist (create_webhook, update_webhook, delete_webhook), the 'list' action is clearly differentiated from those mutation siblings, and the parent 'list_' prefix distinguishes it from the general pool. It's clear but not exhaustive about pagination semantics that siblings might share.

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 implies this lists webhook endpoints for a project, and the schema's project_id parameter explicitly references list_projects for obtaining valid IDs, giving some usage context. However, there's no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of pagination usage (limit/cursor) which would be core to a list operation, and no alternatives mentioned among the large sibling set. The context of requiring project_id is implied but not stated in the description.

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