list_webhooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond them: delivery history remains unavailable until switched on, and it never exposes the signing secret or request body — meaningful data-scope limits not derivable from annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loads the primary list behavior, then the alternate view, then the caveats — three tight sentences with no filler. The phrase 'stays off until it is switched on' is slightly oblique about what must be enabled, a minor clarity cost but not wasted text.

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?

Covers both modes and the notable data exclusions for a read-only, no-required-param tool with five optional params and no output schema. Missing only pagination guidance for limit/offset, which the schema partially addresses; nothing essential to invoking it correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 60%, and the description only explains the view enum and the view=deliveries/webhook_id pairing, both partly echoed in the schema. It adds no semantics for limit, offset, or workspace_id, so it does not compensate for the remaining coverage gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries most parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (API webhook subscriptions) plus what the payload surfaces: event filters, active state, and most recent delivery status. It also delineates the two view modes, so an agent can distinguish this from create_webhook and manage_webhook without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the deliveries case: use view=deliveries with webhook_id to read recent attempts for a single webhook. It gives clear context for when each view applies, but does not name sibling alternatives (create_webhook, manage_webhook) or state exclusions such as 'use manage_webhook to change active state'.

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