List Webhook Deliveries

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), and the description adds real value beyond them: the 30-day retention window, newest-first ordering, and the 100-item hard cap. It does not say what happens with an unknown endpointId or what a delivery record contains, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

A single sentence with the scope, ordering, cap, and purpose front-loaded in that order — every clause earns its place and 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?

For a read-only, three-parameter list tool with full schema coverage, the description covers what the agent needs to call it and interpret the window. Since there is no output schema, the absence of any hint about per-delivery fields (status, response codes, timestamps) is the one remaining gap.

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 all three parameters are already documented including the 1..100 range and default of 50. The description's restatement of the cap and ordering adds slight reinforcement but no new syntax or meaning, and it says nothing about spaceId. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Names a specific resource (delivery attempts for a webhook endpoint) plus two scoping traits — a 30-day window and newest-first ordering — so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from get_webhook or list_webhooks, but the resource noun 'delivery attempts' is distinct enough in practice.

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?

Supplies a concrete use case — diagnosing why an endpoint never received or never acknowledged an event — which tells the agent when this tool is the right call. It gives no explicit exclusions or pointers to a sibling alternative, but no sibling covers delivery attempts, so the routing risk is low.

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