Get webhook

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

The description discloses meaningful behavior beyond the schema: the passcode is redacted by Figmachers and the required scope is `webhooks:read`. This is useful security/response information and is consistent with the `readOnlyHint` annotation. No contradiction found.

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 and front-loaded: it begins with the HTTP verb and endpoint, then notes the required scope and the passcode redaction behavior. No filler or redundant restatements.

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 straightforward fetch-by-ID operation with a single parameter)Skip, the description covers the essential request scope and a key response behavior (passcode redaction). It does not document error cases or the full response shape, but those omissions are minor given the simplicity of the 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 provides only `webhook_id` with `minLength` and no description, and the tool description does not elaborate on the parameter beyond showing `{id}` in the endpoint path. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not define what the ID is, its format, or how to obtain it.

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 a read operation on a single webhook via `GET /v2/webhooks/{id}`, distinguishing it from create/update/delete sibling tools. The `webhooks:read` scope reinforces the purpose. An agent can easily infer this is a fetch-by-id tool.

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 endpoint and scope imply the tool is for retrieving a single webhook by ID, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as listing webhooks or creating one. Context is clear enough for a simple GET-by-ID, but no exclusions or sibling routing are provided.

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