get_webhook_stats

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool depends on server-level API key configuration, not on the interactive login flow. It also implies a read-only statistical operation. It could add response-shape details or rate-limit notes, but for a zero-parameter read tool the access behavior is the most critical missing context and it is provided.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a necessary access prerequisite. Every sentence contributes: the first defines the operation, the second explains exactly how to enable it and warns against a likely wrong path (start_login).

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-parameter statistics tool with no output schema, the description gives enough information to call it successfully after configuration. It covers the required access setup and a high-level summary of the returned data. It could specify what 'recent activity' means or provide a sample return structure, but these are minor gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to add; the description's mention of what statistics are returned partially substitutes for parameter-level documentation.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get webhook delivery statistics') and enumerates the exact contents: total deliveries, success/failure counts, and recent activity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_webhook_delivery and list_webhook_deliveries, which concern individual deliveries rather than aggregate statistics.

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 clear context for when the tool can be used: a Proof account must exist, PROOF_API_KEY must be set, and the server must be restarted before calling. It also explicitly warns that start_login does not unlock this tool, which is a useful exclusion. It does not, however, name alternative tools or state when aggregate stats are preferable to listing deliveries.

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