discord_list_webhooks

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint: true, openWorldHint: true) and adds behavioral details: it notes the data returned ('id, name, channel, token when visible, creator') and the read-only nature. This provides useful context beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three sentences that convey the action, parameter constraints, and permissions. No extraneous words, and information is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and permission. Minor details like pagination or rate limits are omitted, but these are not critical for a read-only 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 input schema already fully describes both parameters (100% coverage). The description reinforces the mutual exclusivity constraint but doesn't add new semantic information. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description provides marginal added value.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('webhooks'), and clarifies the scope ('in a single channel or across a whole server'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that create, delete, edit, or send webhook messages, making its purpose clear and unique.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (listing webhooks) and provides usage constraints ('Provide exactly one of channel_id or guild_id') along with a required permission ('Requires the Manage Webhooks permission'). It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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