webhooks_list_channel

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive safety profile, lowering the bar. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Structured names remain raw creator-controlled data; the human-readable text response fences them.' This discloses how the tool handles potentially untrusted user input in its output.

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 organized into three labeled sections (Purpose, When to use, Returns), each with a single focused sentence. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids any fluff, making efficient use of every word.

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 simple single-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema and strong annotations. The description effectively covers purpose, use cases, return shape, and a security-relevant caveat about raw data. No critical behavioral aspects are missing for an agent to select and invoke it 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 schema description coverage is 100% (channel_id with description 'Channel to query'), so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description does not add new semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format or constraints, so a 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List webhooks attached to a single channel.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like webhooks_list_guild (which lists guild-wide webhooks) and webhooks_get (which retrieves a single webhook by ID). The scope is explicit and unambiguous.

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 'When to use' section provides concrete scenarios: discovering webhooks before sending via webhooks_execute and auditing a channel for unauthorized webhooks. It explicitly names an alternative tool (webhooks_execute) and implies the channel-scoped nature, offering clear guidance on when to choose this tool.

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