get_webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Get a webhook by ID,' which implies a safe read operation, but it does not confirm idempotency, error handling (e.g., behavior if webhook_id doesn't exist), authentication requirements, or rate limits. There is no annotation contradiction.

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 extremely concise at one sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has one required parameter (high simplicity), full schema coverage, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented). The description sufficiently covers the basic purpose for retrieving a single webhook, though it lacks error or security context. Given the low complexity and supporting structure, it is adequately complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter (webhook_id: string). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the parameter is self-explanatory and the schema is clear, so no deduction is needed.

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 it gets a webhook by its ID, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('webhook'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_webhook, update_webhook, and create_webhook by its read-only nature. However, it does not differentiate from get_team_event_type_webhook as both retrieve a webhook by ID, though the context of the webhook (team vs. event type) is implied by the schema name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings are list_webhooks, get_team_event_type_webhook, and check_ics_feed, but the description offers no criteria for selection, such as needing to retrieve a specific webhook for auditing or debugging. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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