list_webhooks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: secrets are omitted from the returned destinations. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, or anything about ordering/pagination. One genuine disclosure, several gaps.

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 tight sentence with the scoping constraint and the no-secrets caveat front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence but reads cleanly.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource and a key caveat, which is minimally sufficient. It stops short of documenting formId or confirming the read-only nature, the only remaining things an agent would want.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter formId is undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase 'on a form' only implies that formId selects the form; no format, ID source, or expected value is given to compensate.

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 names the exact resource ('webhook destinations') and constrains scope to a form, which distinguishes it from the sibling add_webhook. It lacks an explicit verb (list/retrieve), but the resource-plus-scope phrasing leaves no real ambiguity about what is returned.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus add_webhook or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the read counterpart to add_webhook purely from the tool name.

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