hookbase_list_destinations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List all webhook destinations') but lacks details on permissions required, pagination behavior, rate limits, error handling, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool that likely returns organizational data.

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 two concise sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and a brief clarification about destinations. Every word adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 complexity of listing organizational resources, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like data scope, ordering, or response structure, leaving gaps that could hinder correct tool invocation by an agent.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly doesn't discuss parameters, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary information while matching the schema's simplicity.

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 ('List') and resource ('all webhook destinations in the organization'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes webhook destinations from other resources but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like hookbase_list_routes or hookbase_list_sources, which follow a similar pattern.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare it to hookbase_get_destination for single-destination retrieval, or specify use cases like auditing or setup. This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.

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