List Webhooks Triggers (Deprecated)

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds concrete behavioral details: it states the tool is read-only ("Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore"), explains pagination behavior ("page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain"), and discloses error handling ("401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve"). This goes well beyond what annotations declare.

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 earns its place, covering scope, deprecation, usage, return format, read-only nature, error handling, and required parameters. It is front-loaded with the most critical constraints (scope and deprecation) and contains no filler.

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?

Since no output schema is provided, the description explains the return format ("Returns a JSON array of webhooks triggers"), pagination details, and error handling. It also covers prerequisites and deprecation, making it complete for a list tool with these annotations and a fully described schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful note about hook_id needing to identify an existing parent record and mentions the company/project scope, but it largely repeats the required parameters already present in the schema. No significant extra meaning is provided beyond 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 it lists webhooks triggers and is used to discover triggers or look up an id before calling another tool. It also defines a specific scope ("within a company and/or project scope"). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_company_webhooks_triggers or list_project_webhooks_triggers, so it stops short of a 5.

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 triggers or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it") and provides an alternative via the deprecation notice ("prefer a newer version of this resource where one exists, and use procore_search_endpoints to find it"). It also gives a prerequisite (hook_id must exist, resolve with matching list tool), thoroughly covering when and when-not.

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