list_webhooks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It conveys the read-only scoping behavior (channel-scoped vs server-wide), which is useful, but omits pagination, return shape, and permission requirements for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the scope distinction front-loaded and zero filler. Every word 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 simple two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. Minor gap: it doesn't hint at the guildId default or what a webhook entry contains, but nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both guildId (with its default) and channelId. The description only echoes the two scoping modes and adds no syntax or defaulting details beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List all webhooks') plus scope ('on a specific channel or across a whole server'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools (create_webhook/delete_webhook/send_webhook_message) to differentiate, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'on a specific channel or across a whole server' implies when you'd pick each mode, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance relative to the other webhook tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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