List webhooks

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a read-safe operation, and the description adds valuable behavioral context by guaranteeing that tokens are never included. It also clarifies the scoping behavior (server vs. channel), which goes beyond the bare annotation and gives the agent important security-relevant details.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core scope information and a critical security detail, earning every word. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 tool's simplicity, a readOnly annotation, and a minimal schema with two optional parameters, the description provides sufficient context. It addresses the main ambiguity of scope and explicitly notes the absence of tokens, though it does not mention pagination, result ordering, or the exact output shape, which are likely not essential for this type of list operation.

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 schema includes descriptions for only one of two parameters (guild), leaving channel undocumented. The description adds that channel scopes to 'one channel,' which provides some semantic meaning, but it does not explain the relationship between guild and channel (e.g., whether channel requires guild) or behavior when both are omitted. This is partial compensation for the 50% coverage gap.

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 identifies the resource (webhooks) and scopes it to a server or single channel, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_webhook or delete_webhook. Although the verb 'list' is not explicitly repeated, the title and context make the action obvious, so it is specific without being tautological.

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 conveys the intended use case (listing webhooks across a server or filtered to one channel), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. There is no mention of when not to use it, such as when needing webhook tokens or handling integrations.

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