List webhooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: it auto-paginates next_page, requires the webhooks:read scope, and explains a common 403 failure mode. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The endpoint and core behavior are front-loaded, followed by the scope requirement and a practical error hint. 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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: endpoint, scoping options, pagination, required scope, and a common error. It does not describe the response shape, but the absence of an output schema and the read-only annotations make that a minor gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds the meaning of the context/plan_api_id split and the auto-pagination behavior, but it does not add detail about the format of context_id or plan_api_id beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries most of the parameter 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 states a specific verb ('list'), resource ('Webhooks v2'), and the scoping dimensions ('context (team/project/file) or plan_api_id'). It also names the HTTP endpoint, which disambiguates it from sibling tools like get_webhook, create_webhook, update_webhook, and delete_webhook. The scope and pagination behavior are clearly identified.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to list webhooks for a context or plan_api_id. It also provides a troubleshooting hint ('403 usually means missing scope or plan without webhooks'), which helps an agent decide whether this is the right tool or whether a different action is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and the endpoint make the distinction clear.

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