List endpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope information (results are limited to the current SlingHook workspace) but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what happens with an empty workspace, so it only modestly exceeds the annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler: the first states what is returned, the second states when to reach for it. The key information is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the 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 zero-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the essentials: workspace scope, the identity of endpoints as catch URLs, their relay targets, and its role as an entry point. The only real gap is return shape/pagination detail, which is minor for a simple list call with no output schema.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly frames the call as scope-free (workspace-determined) rather than implying any filtering input the agent might look for.

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 ("Lists the catch URLs (endpoints)") and immediately disambiguates the term by explaining what an endpoint is and that its relay destination is included. This makes it clearly distinct from siblings such as list_events, get_event, or create_endpoint.

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 sentence "Start here to find the endpoint a webhook was sent to" gives concrete entry-point guidance and implies this should precede event-level lookups like list_events or get_event. It stops short of naming those alternatives or stating exclusions, so it is clear context rather than explicit routing.

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