List Webhooks

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description adds value by describing what each listed webhook contains: an HTTPS URL, subscribed events, and enabled state. There is no contradiction and no undisclosed mutation or side effect.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with the action and scope front-loaded. Every clause adds useful information about the resource or its returned fields, with 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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the result contents and the Space scoping. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but the low complexity and readOnlyHint annotation make that a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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% for the single optional spaceId parameter, and the description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond restating the Space scope. The schema already explains that spaceId can default from KROVA_SPACE_ID, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'webhook endpoints registered against a Space', and the key attributes returned (HTTPS URL, subscribed events, enabled status). It does not explicitly contrast sibling tools like get_webhook or list_webhook_deliveries, but the list semantics are unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear context: this tool lists webhook endpoints scoped to a Space. It implies read-only enumeration, but it does not explicitly name when to prefer get_webhook or list_webhook_deliveries instead, so it stops short of a 5.

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