kaiten_get_webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the key failure mode ('GET by ID may return 405') and recommends a workaround. It does not add much else about response shape or permissions, but the 405 caveat is meaningful behavioral information not available in the schema.

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?

Two sentences carry all essential information: the operation and the critical fallback note. There is no filler, and the caveat is placed immediately after the 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?

For a simple two-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the resource, the required scope, and the likely failure mode with a fallback. It would be slightly stronger with a hint about the response shape, but 'Get a specific external webhook' makes the return value reasonably predictable.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters at 100% coverage. The description only restates 'space' and 'webhook' context without adding ID format, lookup behavior, or relationship details, so it stays at the schema-driven baseline.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a specific external webhook'), and a scope ('for a Kaiten space'). It also distinguishes the tool from the list and incoming-webhook siblings, especially by naming kaiten_list_webhooks and by qualifying the webhook as 'external'.

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 note provides an explicit alternative and a condition: if GET by ID returns 405, use kaiten_list_webhooks instead. This directly tells an agent when not to use the tool and which sibling to fall back to.

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