Get Webhook

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's main contribution is the non-obvious note that the signing secret is never returned and exists only at create time — this prevents an agent from retrying or hunting for it. It stops short of describing delivery status, timestamps, or error behavior for an unknown id.

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 zero filler; the returned-field summary comes first and the secret caveat follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the key returned fields and flags the one notable omission (the secret), which is enough to call this tool correctly. Missing only minor behavior such as the response for an unknown or deleted endpoint id.

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 100%, so both endpointId and spaceId are already documented, including the KROVA_SPACE_ID default. The description only reinforces 'by id' and adds no format or fallback detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single webhook endpoint by id') and enumerates the salient returned fields (URL, subscribed events, enabled flag). It is clearly a single-resource fetch, which implicitly separates it from list_webhooks, though it never names that sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: the id-based fetch signals 'use when you already know the endpoint id,' but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no reference to list_webhooks as the discovery alternative or to delete_webhook as the other id-based sibling. The list_webhooks pointer lives in the schema, not the description.

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