List supported providers and event types

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not disclose details such as whether the provider list is static or dynamic, whether authentication is needed, or what the returned structure looks like.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without wasting tokens.

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 enumeration tool, the description is reasonably complete: it names the output domain (providers and event types) and the scope (AnyHook mocking). Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the returned format could help, but the low complexity keeps this from being a major gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so parameter documentation is not needed. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on what the list contains rather than on inputs.

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 names the exact resource: webhook providers supported by AnyHook, plus their available event types. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like anyhook_mock or anyhook_inspect, which do different operations.

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 intended use is implied: an agent should call this when it needs to know which providers or event types are supported. However, no alternatives are mentioned, and there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to siblings like anyhook_events.

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