teamleader_webhooks_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, which is disclosed, but the description does not mention return format, pagination behavior, or any side effects. It is minimally transparent, adding no detail beyond the inherent meaning of 'list'.

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, concise sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the verb, earning a perfect score for efficiency.

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 operation with two optional pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states the core purpose clearly. A complete explanation of return structure would require an output schema, but the description could have added a note about pagination or the webhook object fields. Given the simplicity, it is mostly sufficient.

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 schema covers 50% of parameters (page_size has a description, page does not), and the description adds no parameters details. Page is self-explanatory as a number, and page_size is partially documented with 'max 100'. The description neither compensates for page's lack of description nor clarifies pagination semantics. This sits at the mid-coverage baseline.

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 'List registered webhooks' uses a specific verb (List) and resource (registered webhooks), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that register or unregister webhooks. It is unambiguous and directly states the action and target.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the usage is implied by the verb 'List' and the resource 'webhooks', and the siblings include register/unregister. It's clear that this is for viewing existing webhooks, but no explicit when/how guidance is given.

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