List Webhooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: secrets are never returned, which sets expectations about the payload's sensitivity.

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?

Two short sentences, with the resource and the parenthetical security note front-loaded and the targeting rule following. Every clause carries information; there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the secret-suppression note covers the one surprising aspect of the response. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing, though pagination or ordering behavior is not addressed.

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?

With only one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents campaignId, including the env-var fallback. The description merely restates that same targeting rule, adding no new syntax or format detail beyond structured data.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List your GrowSurf program's webhooks') and clarifies the parent-resource relationship, which distinguishes it from the create/update/delete/test webhook siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

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?

It explains the targeting rule (pass campaignId or fall back to GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, e.g. 'use before updating/deleting a webhook' or 'use create_campaign_webhook to add one.' Usage is implied by the verb, not stated.

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