list_webhook_endpoints

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior; the description goes beyond them by disclosing the required permission (webhook.manage), the authorization scope (tenant/agent/Live-Sandbox), and that secrets are not returned. It also clarifies that legacy agent callback settings are out of scope, adding meaningful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 main action is front-loaded and the description is reasonably compact, but not every sentence earns its place: 'Reuse the exact idempotency_key and input after an uncertain mutation' seems copied from mutation tools and is confusing for a read-only, zero-input list endpoint. The permission and auth sentences are dense but relevant, keeping the description somewhat efficient overall.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with a rich output schema and annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers scope, permission, authorization boundaries, exclusions, and provides a documentation link. The irrelevant idempotency note is a minor clarity issue but does not leave an agent without the information needed to call 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is complete, so there is nothing for the description to add about individual parameters; the baseline-4 rule applies. The description does add value by specifying what the returned webhook data includes and excludes, which helps an agent interpret the output.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource—'List the member's webhooks'—and enumerates the returned fields (name, URL, events, keyword rules, status) while excluding secrets. It also notes that legacy agent callback settings are separate, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools like list_webhook_deliveries or create/update endpoints, so the sibling differentiation is partial.

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 gives an implicit exclusion for legacy agent callback settings and mentions the required permission and authorization model, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over sibling webhook tools (e.g., list_webhook_deliveries for delivery history), and the idempotency instruction appears aimed at mutations rather than this zero-parameter read.

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