List Webhooks Resources (Deprecated)

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), return format (JSON array), and expected failure modes (401/403/404). It confirms read-only semantics without contradicting 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by deprecation warning, usage context, return behavior, error handling, and endpoint reference. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers return type, pagination, error conditions, required parameters, and deprecation status. It provides a complete picture for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly, even with no external documentation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the combined effect of page and per_page on pagination and mentions the response reports pages remaining. It also reiterates the required project_id, though that is already in 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the list of Webhook Resources for the given scope.' It further clarifies its purpose as discovering resources and looking up IDs before other calls. Although it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling company/project webhook tools, the deprecation note and search guidance make the intended use 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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this to discover webhooks resources or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it') and when not to (deprecated, prefer newer version, use procore_search_endpoints). This is clear, actionable guidance with alternative routes.

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