scf_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. It correctly indicates a read-only operation (list), specifies ordering and returned fields. It does not disclose pagination or authorization details, but for a simple list tool this is largely sufficient.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the purpose and ordering, then lists returned fields. No wasted words. Structure is optimal.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the returned fields and ordering. It does not mention pagination or total count, which would be useful, but for a straightforward list it is reasonably complete.

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?

Only one parameter (org_id) with 100% schema coverage. The schema description already explains it. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond stating 'organization's webhook endpoints'.

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), resource (webhook endpoints), scope (organization), ordering (newest first), and returned fields (name, status, delivery count, secret prefix). It distinguishes from siblings like scf_get_webhook, scf_create_webhook, etc.

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 implies usage when listing webhook endpoints for an organization, but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. Among sibling webhook tools (create, get, delete, etc.), no guidance is given on choosing this list operation over others.

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