list_watch_deliveries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses key behavioral details such as the exclusion of email-only watches, the non-persistence of test deliveries, and the 'Free' attribution. It doesn't cover auth or rate limits, but for a simple read-only list, this is substantial transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The main sentence is efficient, and the subsequent sentences add necessary exclusions. The 'Free.' note is somewhat extra but not wasteful, and the overall structure is clean with no 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: scope, ordering, exclusions, and cost. It lacks a description of the return format, but the tool name and context imply a list of delivery attempts. Overall, it is reasonably complete for an agent to use 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 50% (only 'limit' has a description). The description adds meaning to 'watch_id' by specifying it must be a watch you own, which helps clarify the parameter. 'limit' is already well-described in the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat it. This is adequate but not extensive.

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's function: list the most recent webhook delivery attempts for a watch you own, ordered newest first. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on delivery history and excluding email-only and test deliveries, which is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 clear usage context: this tool is only applicable to webhook/both channel watches, as email-only watches always return an empty list and test deliveries are never shown. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, these exclusions effectively guide when the tool should and shouldn't be used.

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