list_webhooks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses output fields and offers interpretive guidance for failure_count, which adds value beyond a simple list operation. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but the tool is a simple read-only list with no parameters.

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 four sentences, each adding value: what it does, what fields it shows, when to use it, and how to interpret a key field. There is no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and interpretation. It complements the sibling create_webhook tool and nothing essential is missing given the tool's simplicity.

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 accepts no parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter details and effectively covers the empty schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('configured webhook subscriptions'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like create_webhook by clearly stating it shows webhook details. It enumerates the fields returned, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 explicitly provides use cases ('audit integrations', 'check for delivery failures', 'verify that the right events are being captured'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.

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