beaconed_webhooks_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does so by explicitly stating 'GET' and 'fetch,' which imply a read-only, non-mutating operation, and it adds useful detail about the return content ('including last error info'). It does not discuss error cases or auth requirements, but for a simple GET-by-id tool this is largely adequate.

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 front-loads the HTTP method and endpoint, states the core purpose, and adds the key differentiator about last error info. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

This is a very simple tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description supplies the endpoint, the intent, and a hint of return contents, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could be slightly richer by describing the full response shape, but the absence of an output schema does not make this description inadequate.

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 already documents the only parameter, id, as a 'Webhook UUID,' and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds the context that this id selects a specific webhook subscription, but it does not meaningfully expand on the schema's own parameter documentation. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 begins with the explicit HTTP verb and resource path, then states the action: 'fetch details about a specific webhook subscription.' It also adds a meaningful differentiator by noting 'including last error info,' which distinguishes this from the sibling beaconed_webhooks_list tool. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from related webhook tools.

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 clearly signals this is the tool for retrieving a single webhook subscription by ID, especially through the word 'specific' and the {id} path parameter. It does not explicitly name the sibling list tool as the alternative for fetching all webhooks, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer when this tool applies.

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