get_mailbox_webhook

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'get details' implying read-only, but does not confirm no side effects, mention required permissions or auth, or describe error behavior (e.g., what if webhook not found). Minimal information leaves ambiguity.

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 very concise (one sentence, 6 words) and directly to the point. It is appropriately short for a simple retrieval operation. However, there is room to add value without becoming verbose.

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 no output schema, the description should inform what details are returned (e.g., webhook URL, events, status) but does not. It also lacks information about typical usage ordering (e.g., list first then get by ID). The low context may force the agent to guess return structure.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'by ID' for webhook_id, which is already implied by the parameter name and description. No new context is provided.

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 it retrieves details of a specific webhook by ID (get + details + webhook + by ID). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_mailbox_webhooks (listing all), register/update/delete (mutations). The verb 'Get' and resource 'details of a specific webhook' precisely convey the action.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not indicate that this is appropriate when you have a specific webhook ID, whereas list_mailbox_webhooks is for browsing. No examples, prerequisites, or use-case hints are provided.

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