List webhooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the tailnet scoping of the result set but says nothing about return shape, ordering, or whether pagination applies, which is the remaining context a caller would want.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource and scope stated up front and no filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing the tailnet scoping qualifier.

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, annotation-backed list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the caller needs to select it. It could be marginally more complete with a note on return format, but that is a minor omission given the trivial surface area.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case – there are no argument semantics for the description to clarify. No meaningful gap exists 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 ('List') and resource ('webhooks') scoped to the tailnet, which clearly distinguishes it from the create/get/update/delete webhook siblings. It stops just short of explicitly contrasting itself with tailscale_get_webhook (single vs. all), so it isn't a textbook 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?

Using this to enumerate webhooks is strongly implied by 'List all', but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. get_webhook for a single record). For a zero-parameter list tool the intended use is obvious, making this minimally adequate rather than rich.

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