Test Webhook

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

Annotations already cover safety profile. Description adds default eventType and example, but doesn't explicitly state the test event is actually sent to endpoint or discuss permissions/errors.

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?

Two efficient sentences (plus translation) that front-load action and purpose with zero wasted words.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Description provides sufficient context for a simple test tool, including parameter details and use case.

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 covers both params with descriptions. Description adds value with example usage and default for eventType, exceeding 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?

Description uses specific verb 'fire' and resource 'webhook endpoint', clearly distinguishing from other webhook tools (get, create, update, delete) by being a test action.

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?

Describes usefulness for verifying reachability, signature, TLS. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisites (webhook must exist), but context is clear.

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