zadig_workflow_webhook_list

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

With no annotations, the description itself must convey behavior. It clearly states this is a read-style 'List' operation and scopes it to one workflow, which is adequate for a simple list, though it does not mention raw/include_raw semantics or authentication implications.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the operation and scope with no filler. Every word adds value.

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 output schema covers the return shape, and the description covers the resource, but without parameter descriptions or usage exclusions the description is only minimally complete for a tool with three parameters and several sibling tools.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description does not explain the parameters. 'One workflow' implies the workflow_name parameter, but project_key and include_raw are left undocumented by the description.

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 names a specific action ('List') and resource ('webhook/git trigger settings') scoped to a single workflow, so a caller understands what the tool returns. It does not explicitly call out sibling distinctions, but the webhook/git-trigger focus separates it from the workflow CRUD siblings.

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 the use case: when you need webhook or git trigger settings for a particular workflow. It gives no exclusions or alternatives, so an agent is not told when to prefer this over webhook_preset or compare_to_preset.

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