Contract Testing: List Webhooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the workspace-level scope and 'all webhooks', which is useful but does not disclose additional behaviors such as pagination semantics or return shape. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Toolset: Webhooks' label and parameter list are slightly redundant with the title and schema, but the overall size is appropriate and no information is buried or verbose.

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, read-only, paginated list operation with fully documented optional parameters and strong annotations, the description is mostly complete. It does not describe the output format, but for a list-everything endpoint this is a minor gap given there is no output schema.

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 fully documents both parameters with names, defaults, and descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description merely repeats the parameters without adding new semantics like interaction between pageNumber and pageSize or result ordering. It provides no value beyond the schema.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('all webhooks configured in the workspace'), clearly distinguishing this collection operation from sibling tools like contract-testing_get_webhook and contract-testing_execute_webhook. Scope and resource are both explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need the full list of webhooks in the workspace. However, the description does not explicitly contrast it with contract-testing_get_webhook for retrieving a single webhook, nor does it state when not to use it. There is no explicit alternatives guidance beyond the verb 'list'.

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