ecp_git_webhook_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' conveys a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is the key behavioral trait, but the description adds no further context such as side-effect absence, response behavior, or error conditions. This is minimal but not misleading.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every part contributes meaning, and 'Get' immediately signals the operation type. This is appropriately concise for a simple getter tool.

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 tool is simple: one parameter, no output schema, no annotations. The description identifies the resource and the return concept ('config and status), which is adequate for a minimal getter. However, the lack of parameter semantics and absence of any return format or usage-against-siblings guidance leaves some gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description does not mention the `app_id` parameter at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory as an app identifier, and the schema gives its type, but the description adds no additional meaning such as where the app_id comes from or how it should be formatted. With no compensation for the low coverage, this is a clear gap.

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 ('Get') and names a specific resource ('an app's git deploy-webhook config and status'), which makes the core purpose clear. It is readily distinguishable from the webhook create/update/delete siblings, though 'status' could be more clearly separated from related tools like ecp_git_webhook_deliveries or ecp_git_webhook_capabilities.

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?

Usage context is implied: the agent should call this when it needs the current git deploy-webhook configuration/status and not when it wants to create, update, or delete a webhook. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so an agent must infer the boundary from the verb and sibling names.

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