Get webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It indicates the tool returns sensitive data (signing secret) and failure state, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state safety, idempotency, or authorization requirements. It meets minimal transparency but lacks additional behavioral context.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key details without excess. However, it could be slightly improved by separating the key details from the ID format.

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 get operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the returned information (signing secret, failure state) and the ID format. No critical information is missing for an agent to use the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter already described by pattern and description. The description adds minor context (e.g., 'whk_...') but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('webhook endpoint'), and specifies what is returned (signing secret, failure state). It distinguishes from siblings like create_webhook, delete_webhook, and list_webhooks by focusing on retrieving a single endpoint with details.

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 does not explicitly provide when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies it is for retrieving a specific webhook, no guidance is given on exclusions or when to prefer list_webhooks or other tools. Implicit context from sibling tools is not sufficient for a higher score.

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