query_webhook_history

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it returns up to `limit` rows (with default and max), lists the returned fields, and explains that settled_tx appears only after batch settle. It does not explicitly state it is read-only or mention permissions, but the read nature is implied by 'Show' and the context is sufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a clear list of returned fields, and a dedicated 'USE WHEN' section. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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 the existence of an output schema (implied by the listed fields), the description already covers the key return values and behavioral nuance (e.g., settled_tx timing). It is complete for a query tool, though it could mention pagination beyond the limit parameter or error handling.

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%, so the description compensates by explaining the purpose of `trigger_id` (the webhook trigger) and providing details for `limit`: default 10, max 200, and that it returns the most-recent rows. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 it shows webhook delivery history for a trigger, using a specific verb ('Show') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools, which are about automation management and machine history, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly provides usage scenarios with example user queries ('did the alert actually go out?') and notes that soft-deleted triggers can be queried, offering clear context. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool suggestions, which are not critical given the tool's unique purpose.

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