List webhooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious context: the requirement for a paid plan and the workspace-level scope. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, earning a 4.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a key prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the core purpose and an important constraint (paid plan). The readOnly annotation covers safety, and the schema covers parameter details. It does not mention pagination or return format, but given the tool's simplicity, this is not a significant gap.

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 has 100% coverage; workspace_id is fully described with its fallback behavior. The description does not add any information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (webhooks) and its scope (workspace), which distinguishes it from sibling tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve,' but the title provides that, and the noun phrase 'Webhooks registered on the workspace' is unambiguous.

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 includes a prerequisite ('Needs a paid plan') which is useful for deciding when the tool can be used, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Given there is no sibling webhook tool, usage is implied by uniqueness, but the absence of explicit guidance keeps this at a 3.

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