twitter_monitor_webhook_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral details: the signing secret is only returned at creation, and the status meanings are explained (e.g., 'disabled' means 410 Gone and requires re-registering). This goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first fronts the purpose and fields, the second provides a key caveat about the signing secret and confirms no arguments. Every sentence adds value with zero 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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what will be returned (id, url, status, created_at), explains status semantics, and notes the exclusion of the signing secret. It is complete for its purpose.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage). The description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments,' which reinforces the schema and removes any ambiguity. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and this meets it.

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 'List every webhook registered on your account' and specifies the exact fields returned (id, url, status, created_at). It uses a specific verb and resource, and implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like webhook_create, webhook_delete, and webhook_test.

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 name and description make it obvious this is the listing operation; it provides context on when to use it (to see webhooks and check their status). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives for create/delete/test operations, relying on sibling names for differentiation.

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