x_api_get_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. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, requires a bearer token, explains environment-selection behavior for scoped credentials, provides an expected response shape, lists common failure conditions, and includes a safety warning about sensitive 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 well-structured with labeled sections and an example. However, the opening 'Use when: Get webhook' is a redundant tautology, and some sections contain generic boilerplate that could apply to any x_api_* tool.

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 provides strong operational context: response shape, failure conditions, auth, and an example. However, it fails to explain what a webhook is, whether the response contains a single webhook or a list, or what domain-specific fields the data will include. Since there is no output schema, this missing semantic detail leaves a significant gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description meaningfully compensates by explaining that scopeTenantId plus exactly one of scopeUserId or scopeAccountId selects the tenant principal, and that credentialKey selects a non-default credential profile. It also notes there are no endpoint-specific parameters, though it leaves authorizationKey and preferredAuthType implicit.

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 opens with 'Get webhook,' which simply restates the tool name and provides no additional meaning. It does not specify whether this retrieves a single webhook or lists all webhooks, nor does it distinguish itself from sibling webhook tools like x_api_get_webhooks_stream_links.

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 'Use when' section is circular ('Get webhook') and gives no practical guidance. The 'Do not use when' condition is generic—applying to exploration or auth prerequisites—rather than explaining when to choose a sibling tool or an alternative for webhook retrieval.

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