List Webhooks Hooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds that it returns a paginated array with metadata, which aligns. No contradictions, but the description does not reveal additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with scope and purpose. It efficiently includes the API reference and required parameters without fluff. Each sentence serves a purpose.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should compensate. It mentions the return is a paginated JSON array with metadata, but does not describe the webhook object fields or pagination structure. For a list tool with 6 parameters, this is moderately complete but lacks detail about the response format.

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?

All 6 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal value by mentioning pagination control with page and per_page. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles the parameter semantics.

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 enumerates webhooks hooks within a company/project scope and lists use cases (paginated overview, find IDs, filter). It differentiates from sibling scope-specific lists (list_company_webhooks_hooks, list_project_webhooks_hooks) by being a general hook lister, but could be more explicit about when to use this vs. those.

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 pagination guidance but contains an internal contradiction: it states 'Required parameters: company_id, project_id' yet the schema parameter descriptions say 'You must supply either a company_id or project_id.' No alternative tools or when-not-to-use guidance are provided, which is confusing for an agent.

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