tiendanube_list_webhooks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states support for filtering by URL, event type, and date ranges, which adds behavioral context. However, it omits details like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error scenarios.

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 a single sentence with an emoji, followed by use cases and filtering support. It is fairly concise but includes slightly excessive phrasing like 'Essential for maintaining API integrations.'

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 rich schema with 10 well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, and filtering. It lacks explicit mention of the return structure (fields), but overall it is complete enough for a list tool.

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% with all 10 parameters documented. The description reinforces filtering capability (URL, event type, dates) but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool retrieves all configured webhook endpoints, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_webhook, get_webhook, update_webhook, and delete_webhook by focusing on listing.

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 provides explicit use cases such as integration management, monitoring, debugging, and auditing. However, it does not mention when to use tiendanube_get_webhook instead for a single webhook, nor does it offer exclusions.

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