get_webhook

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It states it's a retrieval operation (read) but does not disclose potential authentication requirements (api_key is in schema), rate limits, or what exactly 'full configuration' includes beyond listed fields. Adequate but not detailed.

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 concise sentences with clear structure. No superfluous information. Front-loaded with the action and then usage context.

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 existence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what is retrieved and when to use it. Could mention expecting a valid webhook ID, but not essential.

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 coverage is 100%. The description only implicitly references webhook_id via 'by its ID' and does not add meaning beyond the schema. api_key is documented in schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 tool retrieves the full configuration of a specific webhook by ID, listing specific fields (URL, method, headers, status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_webhooks (which lists all) and get_webhook_history.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when: you want to inspect a webhook's URL, method, headers, or status by its ID.' Provides clear context. Does not explicitly mention when to avoid, but the sibling tools provide implicit alternatives.

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