ecp_git_webhook_deliveries

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation, and the debugging purpose implies the response includes delivery attempt details. However, it does not mention any other behavioral traits (pagination, sorting, failure details, or if it's merely a summary). For a list operation this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the scope of purpose is added in a short parenthetical. No filler or repetition exists.

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 simple one-parameter read operation, the description covers the essential points: what it lists, whose history, and why. There is no output schema, so the description should ideally hint at what fields are returned, but the debugging purpose implies the relevant data will be present. This is complete enough for an agent to call and interpret: use it, inspect the returned delivery records.

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 description's phrase 'app's webhook delivery history' directly ties the sole parameter app_id to the app whose deliveries should be listed. Since the schema provides no description for app_id, the tool description compensates well by giving the parameter clear purpose.

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 ('List') and a specific resource ('app's webhook delivery history'). It also states the intended use case ('for debugging why a push didn't deploy'), which distinguishes it from the sibling webhook management tools that configure webhooks rather than inspect their delivery attempts.

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 parenthetical provides clear diagnostic context: use this when investigating a failed deployment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is specific enough that only a minor echo of 'when not' would bring it to 5.

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