List Webhooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuine value by sketching the per-item return shape (URL, subscribed events, enabled flag), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or behavior when no endpoints exist.

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 front-loaded sentence with the scope stated first and the item contents in a subordinate clause; there is no filler. The parenthetical-style detail is dense but readable, though it could be split for faster scanning.

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 read-only single-parameter list tool, the definition covers purpose, scope, and roughly what comes back. The main gap is list behavior — ordering, pagination, and empty-result handling — but with no output schema and a trivial input, the description is close to sufficient.

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 one optional parameter at 100% schema description coverage — including the KROVA_SPACE_ID default fallback — the schema already carries the semantics. The phrase 'registered against a Space' reinforces the spaceId meaning but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the webhook endpoints registered against a Space') and clarifies what a webhook endpoint is (an HTTPS URL receiving events). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_webhook or list_webhook_deliveries, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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 by the word 'List' and the Space scoping — an agent can infer this is the enumeration tool. There is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of get_webhook (single endpoint) or list_webhook_deliveries (delivery history), which are the obvious alternatives in the sibling set.

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