Consultar webhook de recorrências Pix Automático

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that it does not alter delivery, reinforcing the read-only behavior. This is consistent with annotations and provides a slight behavioral nuance beyond them.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second specifies the use case.

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?

The description adequately explains the purpose and use case. With an output schema available, the return structure is documented. It could clarify whether the tool returns a single configuration or a list (given the name 'list'), but overall it is sufficiently complete for this read-only 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?

The tool has no parameters, with 100% schema description coverage. The description does not need to add parameter details. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 tool queries the current webhook configuration for automatic Pix recurrences, using the verb 'consulta' and specifying the resource. It adds that it does not alter delivery, distinguishing it from mutation tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like pix_list_webhook or pix_detail_webhook_recurrence_automatic.

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 advises using it to confirm the destination of events without altering notification delivery, providing clear context for a read-only check. It does not mention when to use alternatives or exclude cases, but the guidance is sufficient for the tool's read-only nature.

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