getWebhooks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the HTTP method, endpoint, read-only nature, and a rate limit of 100 requests per 1 minute. This goes beyond the bare 'List webhooks' statement and gives the agent useful operational constraints, though it does not cover authorization or response shape.

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 compact statement with the core action front-loaded, followed by the two most operationally relevant details: rate limit and HTTP method/endpoint. Every word adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent the endpoint, method, safety profile, and rate limit, which is everything needed to select and 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is complete, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description need not add parameter details because none exist; this is the appropriate baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'List webhooks'. It is distinct from sibling tools like listWebhookEvents, and the endpoint 'GET /postframe/webhooks' removes any ambiguity about the target resource.

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 when to use it: whenever webhooks need to be listed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as listWebhookEvents, nor does it state any conditions for choosing this tool over alternatives. The read-only and endpoint details provide context but no exclusions or alternative routing.

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