ecp_git_webhook_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, nor does it mention potential failure conditions (e.g., app has no git provider) or permission requirements.

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 concise sentence with no filler, but it is too terse to convey necessary context. It is front-loaded with the verb, but omits essential details that could be included without much bloat.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the response will contain (e.g., a list of supported events, boolean flags), nor how it relates to the other git webhook tools. An agent cannot confidently infer the tool's full behavior from this description.

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 only parameter, app_id, is completely undocumented. The schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description does not explain what app_id refers to or how it is used. The agent is left to infer from the name alone.

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 specific verb 'Get' and a resource: 'webhook features the app's git provider supports.' This distinguishes it from siblings that create/update/delete webhooks or list providers/repos. However, 'webhook features' is vague – it doesn't specify what kinds of features (e.g., events, secret rotation) are queried.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ecp_git_webhook_create or ecp_git_webhook_get. The natural use case (checking capabilities before creating a webhook) is only implied, not stated.

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