get_webhooks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool lists webhooks, but does not mention pagination behavior, limit constraints, required client_slug, rate limits, or expected response structure. The read-only nature is implied by 'Lista' but not explicitly disclosed.

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 clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it could have used the available space to add parameter or usage guidance without becoming verbose.

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 listing tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It identifies the resource and account context but omits pagination behavior, the required client_slug, and what the response will contain. An agent would need to infer too much before calling the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%: only client_slug has a description. The tool description adds slight context by tying the operation to the 'Kommo account', which hints at client_slug's role, but it provides no meaning for the page or limit parameters. The description is insufficient to compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Lista os webhooks configurados na conta Kommo' meaning 'Lists the webhooks configured in the Kommo account.' This clearly identifies the operation as a read-only listing and distinguishes it from sibling mutating tools like create_webhook and delete_webhook.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention create_webhook, delete_webhook, or any condition that would make this tool preferable. The usage context is only implicit from the tool name and description.

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