List webhooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral constraint the annotations cannot express: the GLPI 10.0.7 minimum version, which tells the agent when the call will fail.

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, zero filler, with the what-it-lists content front-loaded and the version prerequisite trailing. Nothing needs trimming.

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 present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. The description covers the resource and the compatibility gate; only minor territory (pagination defaults, interaction with the range parameter) is left to the schema.

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%, and both enums (fields, format) are documented in-schema with examples, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's parenthetical field list restates what is returned rather than adding syntax or defaults, 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('configured webhooks') and even names the returned fields (event, itemtype, target URL, active flag). It reads clearly as the collection-listing counterpart to glpi_get_webhook, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling or with glpi_list_webhook_deliveries.

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 implied by the verb: an agent can infer this is the browse/enumerate call for webhook configuration. The version prerequisite ('Requires GLPI 10.0.7 or newer') is stated, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-glpi_get_webhook or glpi_list_webhook_deliveries guidance.

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