list_webhooks

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('List') and the 'active' filter, but lacks details on pagination, response format, or authentication. The second sentence educates about webhooks but does not reveal additional behavioral traits beyond the core listing 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by a succinct explanatory note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is adequate. It explains what it lists and provides background on webhooks. However, it does not describe the return structure (e.g., arrays of webhook objects) or the meaning of 'active' in more detail, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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 description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The schema coverage is trivially 100% with an empty object. The description adds no parameter info, but none is required, warranting the baseline 4.

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 the action ('List') and the resource ('active webhook subscriptions'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_webhook and delete_webhook. The addition of example event types adds context without obscuring the primary purpose.

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 usage is implied: to see existing webhook subscriptions. However, it does not explicitly contrast with create_webhook or delete_webhook, nor does it state when to use this tool in favor of others. The context is clear but not fully explicit.

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