test-webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool sends a simulated payload, which is a test action with no persistent side effects. However, it does not mention potential response behavior, authentication requirements, or error handling, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with 2 parameters, both fully described in the schema, and an enum for event type. The description covers purpose and usage. It might be slightly improved by noting the response format after sending, but given the low complexity, it is largely complete.

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%: both 'endpoint' and 'type' have descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only framing the payload as 'simulated match or event.' The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Test webhook delivery by sending a simulated match or event payload to an endpoint.' It uses a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('webhook delivery'), and the mention of 'simulated payload' distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all property-related.

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 usage context: 'Useful for verifying webhook integration.' This implies when to use the tool, and the sibling tools (e.g., search-properties, get-property) are unrelated, so no explicit alternatives are needed. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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