list_webhooks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists webhooks but doesn't describe key behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if no webhooks exist. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential 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 low complexity (a simple list operation), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and missing behavioral details (e.g., pagination, error handling), it doesn't fully prepare an agent for all usage scenarios. It meets basic needs but lacks depth for robust interaction.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('max' and 'ownedBy') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying an organizational scope, which is partially covered by the 'ownedBy' enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context.

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 action ('List') and resource ('webhooks for the organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_webhook_details' (which retrieves a single webhook) by indicating it returns all webhooks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'list_rooms', 'list_people'), 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 sibling tools like 'get_webhook_details' for retrieving a specific webhook or 'create_webhook' for creating new ones, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for listing webhooks. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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