list_webhooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds two critical behavioral facts beyond annotations: signing secrets are omitted from output, and the operation requires the webhooks:read scope.

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?

Three short sentences with purpose front-loaded, followed by usage context and required scope. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description supplies auth scope, secret omission, and the creation workflow. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage. Per calibration, a zero-parameter tool has a baseline of 4; the description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it does not introduce misleading parameter references for this tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List configured webhook endpoints'. Adds the important qualifier 'without signing secrets' and the required scope 'webhooks:read', clearly distinguishing it from delivery-oriented siblings like list_webhook_deliveries and redeliver_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?

Gives clear workflow context: endpoints are created in the dashboard, then webhook_id is used with async submissions. This tells the agent when and why to use the tool. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or an alternative listing tool, but the usage condition is sufficiently clear.

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