list_webhook_endpoints

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 only states the action ('List') and the resource, but omits details on return format, pagination, authentication requirements, or side effects. For a read operation, this is minimal but acceptable for a simple list; however, it does not proactively disclose any behaviors beyond the basic action.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or extraneous 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?

For a parameterless list tool, the description is functionally complete: it states what is listed (webhook endpoints) and for whom (your registered). While it does not describe the output structure or potential edge cases, these are less critical for a simple read operation. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. The description adds the qualifier 'your registered', which clarifies scope by indicating that it lists the caller's own endpoints. Given the 0-parameter baseline of 4, the description adequately satisfies this dimension without needing to explain parameter details.

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 ('List') and a clear resource ('your registered webhook endpoints'), unambiguously identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_webhook_endpoint' and 'list_webhook_deliveries' by focusing on the listing of endpoints rather than creation or delivery logs.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool like 'create_webhook_endpoint' or 'list_webhook_deliveries' would be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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