Frihet MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide (e.g., no info on error handling, permissions, or rate limits). No contradiction exists, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in a single concise sentence. The bilingual repetition is redundant but doesn't add unnecessary complexity, and every part of the sentence earns its place by reinforcing the key information.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, read-only operation with full annotations), the description is reasonably complete. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values (e.g., what fields the webhook configuration includes), leaving a minor gap for a retrieval tool.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'by its ID' but adds no additional meaning about format, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'webhook configuration', specifies it's for a single webhook by ID, and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_webhooks (which retrieves multiple) and create/update/delete_webhook (which modify). The bilingual format reinforces but doesn't detract from clarity.

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 when you need a specific webhook's configuration by ID, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools (like list_webhooks for multiple webhooks) provides some implicit guidance, though not directly in the description text.

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