list_webhooks

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 discloses that secrets are never returned, which is an important behavioral constraint, and states the auth requirement. It omits pagination details or response format, but for a simple list operation it offers solid transparency.

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 two sentences, both purposeful. The first states exactly what is listed, and the second adds the secret-exclusion and auth requirements. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 parameterless list operation with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: the resource, the fields returned, the exclusion of secrets, and the auth requirement. This is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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, so the schema is empty. Per rubric, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly omits parameter details since none exist.

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 the specific verb 'list' with the resource 'the account's registered webhooks', clearly stating the scope and returned fields (subscribed events, scope, active flag). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_webhook and test_webhook.

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 usage for listing webhooks but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or provide when/when-not guidance. The only context given is the required developer key, which is a prerequisite rather than usage direction.

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