get_webhook_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose that the operation is a read-only GET that returns a list. It does not mention pagination, ordering, permissions, or what an event entry contains, but the GET method plus 'list' gives the essential side-effect information.

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 short sentence plus an endpoint reference; no filler or repetition. The core action is front-loaded and the parenthetical endpoint adds useful specificity without bloat.

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?

This is a minimal viable definition: the tool has only two parameters and the action is simple, but there is no output schema, no annotations, and no guidance on result format or pagination. The sibling list includes closely related tools, so the description alone leaves some routing and return-shape questions open.

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 coverage is 50%: extraQuery is fully described in the schema, while id has no property description. The description adds value by linking {id} to the webhook in question, but it leaves id's type/format and the purpose of extraQuery for this endpoint to be inferred.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it retrieves a list of events tied to a webhook, and adds the concrete endpoint GET /webhookEvents/{id}. It is clear enough to separate from get_event/get_webhook, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list_events.

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 phrase 'for a given webhook' implies the agent should call this when it already has a webhook id and wants that webhook's event history. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or contrast with sibling tools such as list_events or get_webhook.

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