growsurf_list_campaign_webhooks

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states that secrets are never returned, which is a crucial security-related behavior not captured in structured fields. It also clarifies the default campaignId behavior, though that is also in the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with zero waste. The core purpose and the critical secret-handling caveat are front-loaded, followed by the parameter behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or fluff content.

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 list tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete. Annotations cover the read-only and safe nature, an output schema exists to document return values, and the description clarifies the campaign targeting and security guarantee. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already fully documents campaignId, including its default to GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID. The description repeats this information ('Targets campaignId if you pass it, otherwise GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID') without adding new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema carries the burden, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists webhooks for a GrowSurf program, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('webhooks'). It also mentions an important caveat (secrets never returned) and the campaign targeting behavior. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling webhook tools like create/update/delete/test, and from list_campaigns which lists campaigns, not webhooks.

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 description implies usage context (read-only listing) and explains the campaignId targeting behavior, which helps the agent decide when to call it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use growsurf_create_campaign_webhook to add webhooks') or state when NOT to use this tool. The sibling names make the distinction fairly obvious, but explicit guidance would elevate this to a 5.

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