List Discord webhooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations do not: returned webhook objects are token-sanitized, which is important for an agent deciding whether this is safe to surface in output.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the operation and scope, with the security qualifier trailing. No redundant phrasing and nothing to trim.

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?

With rich annotations, an output schema, and one well-typed parameter, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call this tool. The only minor gap is silence on pagination/result limits for a potentially large webhook list.

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 0%, but with a single required parameter whose type and 17-20 digit snowflake pattern are already encoded in the schema, the burden is light. The description does not restate or clarify guildId, but the schema is self-explanatory enough that a 3 is reasonable.

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 webhooks') scoped precisely to 'a Discord guild', and adds the notable output constraint 'without exposing tokens'. An agent can distinguish it instantly from discord_create_webhook and discord_delete_webhook without opening a schema.

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 by the verb and the webhook siblings (create/delete) make the read variant obvious, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. Minimum viable.

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