webhooks_list_guild

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, and the description adds context by outlining the return payload shape and warning that names are raw creator-controlled data fenced in human-readable responses. This provides additional transparency beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured with bold headers and concise sections. It covers purpose, usage, exclusions, and return format without unnecessary verbosity, front-loading the most critical information.

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?

Combined with the rich annotations and output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, selection criteria, and return format. The security note about raw data adds important contextual completeness for an agent.

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 sole parameter `guild_id` is already fully described in the schema with pattern and description, and the description does not add extra parameter-level semantics beyond referencing the guild context. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline 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 clearly states 'List every webhook in a guild (across all channels)' with a specific verb and resource scope. It distinguishes from sibling `webhooks_list_channel` by explicitly noting the cross-channel scope and naming the alternative.

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 explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, listing use cases like server-wide audit and directing to `webhooks_list_channel` for single-channel scope. This gives clear guidance on tool selection.

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