trmnl_webhook_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that access is gated on a webhook UUID credential and that the returned content is the full stored set rather than a sample — useful context, but nothing about auth failure modes, scoping, or response shape.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded ahead of the contrast clause. Slight awkwardness in 'through its webhook UUID credential' but nothing wasteful.

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?

For a two-parameter, open-world, no-output-schema tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves too much unsaid: the 'profile' parameter is undocumented and the nature of 'merge variables' (shape, size, sensitivity) is not characterized. It is not enough for an agent to call this confidently without consulting other tools or docs.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains the required uuidEnv only obliquely ('webhook UUID credential'), and the optional 'profile' parameter is never mentioned at all — an agent has no way to know what it selects or when to supply it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read full stored private-plugin merge variables') plus the access mechanism ('through its webhook UUID credential'). It also contrasts the result with 'editor merge-variable samples', which distinguishes it from the sample-oriented sibling (likely trmnl_get_merge_variables), though it does not name that tool outright.

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 clause 'Unlike editor merge-variable samples this is full content' implies when to prefer this tool over the sampling alternative, but the alternative is never named and no explicit 'use this when / not when' routing is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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