list_watches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The phrase 'Lista todos' indicates a read-only action, but it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, authentication needs, or any other behavioral traits such as pagination or ordering. The description adds minimal context beyond the obvious.

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 concise, using two short sentences and a return list. Every word adds value: it states the action, the object (webhooks), and the return format (ID, pattern, URL). No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and expected return. It is complete and self-contained, making it easy for an agent to invoke 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered by the empty properties object. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool baselines at 4, and the description correctly omits any parameter details since none exist.

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 that the tool lists all registered webhooks ('Lista todos los webhooks registrados') and specifies the return fields (ID, pattern, URL). This is a specific verb+resource combination that differentiates it from sibling tools like watch_hipocampo (which adds a watch) and unwatch_hipocampo (which removes one).

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 implies usage for retrieving all webhooks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. For a simple listing tool, the context is somewhat clear, but explicit guidance is missing.

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