Get Webhook

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which cover safety and idempotency. The description is consistent with these annotations and adds no contradictions. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., auth, rate limits), but given the annotations, the bar is lower.

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 consists of two short sentences (English and Spanish), both front-loaded with the verb and resource. No extraneous information. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no nested objects) and has an output schema (not shown but present). The description, combined with the schema and annotations, provides all necessary context for correct invocation.

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 100% for the single parameter 'id'. The description only says 'by its ID', which adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's description. 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?

Description clearly states the action ('Get'), resource ('webhook configuration'), and how it is identified ('by its ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_webhooks (returns multiple) and test_webhook (tests functionality).

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?

While the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, the purpose is clear and the context of retrieving a single record by ID implies its usage. Sibling tools like list_webhooks and create_webhook provide natural alternatives.

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