Get webhook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload template is included in the result, which is useful content context but no auth, rate-limit, or error behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key resource and the notable content (payload template) come first, and nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema handling return values and 100%-covered params, the description only needs to establish what is fetched and the ID-based scope, which it does. It is complete for a simple get-by-id tool, missing only explicit routing to sibling list/update tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents webhookId, fields, and format in full. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (retrieve) and resource (webhook definition) with the scoping condition 'by ID', which distinguishes it from the sibling glpi_list_webhooks. It does not explicitly name the sibling, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by ID' suggests it is for fetching a single known webhook rather than enumerating them, and no alternatives (e.g. glpi_list_webhooks) or prerequisites are named. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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