List webhook deliveries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds non-structured information: results are ordered newest first and span both sent and pending deliveries, which is behavioral context the schema does not carry. It omits pagination/volume limits, so it falls short of a 5.

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 compact sentences with zero filler: the resource and its contents come first, then the filter options. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a read-only list tool, though the parenthetical resource name is slightly cryptic.

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-required-parameter list tool with an output schema (so return shapes need not be explained) and full annotation coverage, the description gives enough to call it correctly and interpret the queue. It could say more about defaults and pagination, but nothing essential is missing.

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 range, fields, format, only_failed, and webhook_name in detail, including the precise only_failed semantics (sent_try > 1 or status >= 300). The description references webhook_name and only_failed but adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

Names the specific resource (the delivery queue, QueuedWebhook) and enumerates what it contains: what was sent, when, and what is still pending. The listing verb comes from the name/title, and the description distinguishes this from the sibling glpi_list_webhooks by focusing on deliveries rather than webhook definitions. Not a tautology, though it never states the verb itself.

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?

Implies usage via the two filter levers (webhook_name, only_failed 'to see what has been retried'), which tells the agent when to narrow results. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus glpi_list_webhooks, glpi_get_webhook, or glpi_retry_webhook_delivery, so routing is left to inference from the resource name.

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