bridge_list_webhooks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List all webhook endpoints', which essentially restates the tool name with the word 'all'. It does not mention return format, pagination, authentication, or any other behavioral traits, offering little value beyond the structured data.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no fluff or repetition, making it highly concise and effective for a simple tool.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should ideally clarify what is returned, but it omits any return value details. Given the tool's simplicity (zero params, clear list action), the description is minimally viable but has clear gaps around response format and potential behavioral nuances.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description's inclusion of 'all' reinforces that no filters are available, which adds a small semantic layer beyond the empty schema. No parameter details are needed.

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 'List all webhook endpoints' uses a specific verb (List), a clear resource (webhook endpoints), and the scope 'all', distinguishing it from sibling create_webhook. It is unambiguous and directly states what the tool does.

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 context is implied by the verb 'List' and the resource, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention the sibling create_webhook. There is no direct exclusion or alternative guidance, so it is merely adequate.

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