kaiten_list_webhooks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by clarifying these are outbound notifications and that at most one exists per space. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how results are returned, or what happens when no webhook exists.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The core operation is front-loaded, and the uniqueness constraint is a valuable piece of context that earns its place.

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 one-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the resource type, scope, and the one-per-space constraint. It could additionally describe the shape of the returned list or behavior when no webhook exists, but low complexity and full schema coverage reduce the need.

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 fully documents the only parameter, space_id, with 100% description coverage. The description's phrase 'for a Kaiten space' aligns with the parameter but adds no additional format or semantic detail. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States an explicit verb ('List'), a specific resource ('external webhooks'), and a scope ('for a Kaiten space'). The parenthetical '(outbound event notifications)' and the word 'external' clearly distinguish this tool from sibling kaiten_list_incoming_webhooks.

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 clearly establishes the context: listing external/outbound webhooks for a specific space. It also adds the useful constraint that only one external webhook per space is allowed, which helps an agent know what to expect. It does not explicitly name alternatives like kaiten_get_webhook or kaiten_list_incoming_webhooks, so it stops short of a 5.

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