List Webhooks Hooks (Deprecated)

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds important behavioral context: it is read-only, pagination is controlled by page/per_page and the response reports remaining pages, and errors come back with HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). It also states the deprecation date and removal schedule, which is critical for callers. No contradiction with 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?

The description is dense but every sentence contributes: scope, deprecation, usage, return type, pagination, read-only nature, error handling, required parameters, API reference, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the most critical scoping and deprecation information and contains no redundant fluff.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the return format (JSON array), pagination behavior, error payloads, and required parameters. It also provides the API endpoint and deprecation timeline, making it fully self-contained for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds crucial disambiguation: despite the schema property descriptions saying 'You must supply either a company_id or project_id', the tool requires both company_id and project_id. This correction prevents a likely misuse. It also clarifies that page/per_page control pagination, reinforcing 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 clearly states the tool lists webhooks hooks within a company and/or project scope, and explicitly mentions its utility for discovering hooks or looking up IDs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting the deprecation and the scope, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this to discover webhooks hooks or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it') and directs users to a preferred alternative ('prefer a newer version of this resource where one exists, and use procore_search_endpoints to find it'). This clearly differentiates when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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