Get Mail Webhook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get webhook details' is merely a restatement of the tool's purpose and provides no information about the return format, potential errors, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The agent gains no behavioral context beyond the obvious read-only nature implied by 'get'.

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 extremely concise, which is good, but it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification. It is a single fragment that restates the title. While there is no verbosity, the conciseness sacrifices useful information. It earns a score of 3 as acceptable but not exemplary.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide enough context about what 'details' means or what the agent can expect. 'Get webhook details' offers no information about the response structure, fields, or how to interpret the result. This is insufficient for a tool with a single parameter and no other structured metadata.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameters (webhook_id with description 'Webhook ID'), so the description does not need to add much. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, but the baseline for high coverage is 3, and the parameter is self-explanatory. No additional context is needed.

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 'Get webhook details' uses a specific verb and resource, and the tool name clearly indicates the mail webhooks context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mail_webhooks_list by implying retrieval of a single webhook's details, and the required webhook_id parameter confirms this. However, it does not explicitly mention 'by ID' or differentiate from the list tool, so it is clear but not a perfect differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mail_webhooks_list or mail_webhooks_get. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations are provided.

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