Webhooks List

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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds real behavioral context the annotations don't: the required auth scope ('scope of the event's entity, none for app/* and GDPR events') and the pinned API version 2025-03. It does not discuss rate limits or the consequence of the app-scoping constraint.

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?

Four compact lines, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then HTTP method/path, scope, version and return shape. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess or fetch from docs.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies the exact response envelope ({count, page, per_page, total?, has_more, next_page?, items[]}), plus scope and API version — everything needed to call this list endpoint correctly without further docs.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the 11 filter parameters (url, event, created_at_min/max, since_id) beyond what the schema already documents verbatim.

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 webhooks registered by the app'), which contrasts implicitly with tiendanube_webhooks_get/create/update/delete siblings. It stops short of naming the sibling to use for a single webhook, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'List' and by the note that these are webhooks 'registered by the app'. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named (e.g. 'use tiendanube_webhooks_get for a single webhook by id').

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