get_mailbox_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a critical behavior: the signing secret is not returned and is only shown once during setup or rotation. This goes beyond the operation name and gives an agent a realistic expectation of the response.

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?

A single sentence with the main purpose front-loaded and the important caveat placed parenthetically at the end. There is no redundant wording or filler, and every clause adds useful information.

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, two clearly documented parameters, and the absence of an output schema, the description is adequate for an agent to understand the operation and its key limitation. It doesn't describe error cases or return shape, but for a straightforward delegate lookup these are not critical enough to penalize heavily.

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 documents both parameters with clear examples ('domain' and 'localPart'), and description coverage is 100%. The description doesn't expand on parameter semantics, but it doesn't need to since the schema handles it. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('a mailbox's configured webhook URL'), and its read-only intent distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_mailbox_webhook and delete_mailbox_webhook. The parenthetical about the signing secret further clarifies exactly what this tool does and does not return.

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 makes the operational context clear: use this to inspect the current webhook URL configuration. It also provides an explicit exclusion, that the signing secret will never be returned, which tells an agent not to attempt secret retrieval through this tool. It stops short of naming the alternative tools, but the intent is still unambiguous.

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