hcm_list_webhook_events

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, covering the read-only safety profile. The description adds the 'local webhook stub' scope, but does not disclose whether events are ephemeral, ordered, cleared on read, or tied to receiver lifecycle. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler, and the core object and action are front-loaded. It is appropriately minimal for a simple tool, though the brevity partly reflects missing behavioral and usage details.

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 low-complexity read-only list, the overall intent is clear, but there is no output schema, no description of the returned events, and no mention of limit semantics or the dependency on starting/using the webhook stub. The sibling hcm_start_webhook_receiver suggests a lifecycle context that the description fails to address.

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 only parameter, limit, has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the tool description. The schema only provides type and exclusiveMinimum, so the description offers no added meaning about what limit controls, default behavior, or pagination.

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 a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('events received by the local webhook stub'), so an agent can clearly identify the tool's scope. It is also sufficiently distinct from sibling listing tools like hcm_list_notifications and hcm_list_atom_entries.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the relationship to hcm_start_webhook_receiver, nor does it clarify when webhook events would exist, so the agent must infer usage from the name and sibling list.

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