yougile_list_webhooks

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

The description enhances the annotations by revealing that the response is a raw array with no paging wrapper, which is a key behavioral detail for agents handling the output. The annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive behavior, and this note adds context beyond that without conflicting. Slight additional detail about item structure would improve it further.

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 entire description is two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by a valuable, concise note about the response format. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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, zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists and the shape of the response. Given that there is no output schema, noting the raw array is helpful. It could be more complete by describing the type of items in the array, but this is a minor gap for such a straightforward tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage (100%). The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics because there are none. The note about return format is more relevant than parameter behavior.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List all webhooks') that unambiguously identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools by naming the exact resource type. Even without mentioning alternatives, the purpose is crystal clear.

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 implies usage for retrieving webhooks, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or note any exclusions. Given the tool's name and context, the intended usage is clear, but there is no explicit guidance or differentiation from other listing tools.

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