List Webhook Events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds minimal behavioral context. It notes recency ('recent'), implying filtering, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or other behaviors.

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 two concise sentences with no extraneous information, front-loading the core purpose and a usage tip.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and the need for guidance on pagination and filtering, the description is too sparse. It does not cover return structure, event types, or how to use parameters effectively.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description only hints at two parameters (project_id/group_id via 'project or group webhook', summary via 'summary mode'). It fails to explain critical parameters like page, status, or per_page.

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 tool lists recent webhook events for a project or group webhook, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gitlab_get_webhook_event and gitlab_list_webhooks, though it could be more explicit.

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 includes a usage hint ('Use summary mode for overviews'), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gitlab_get_webhook_event or gitlab_list_webhooks.

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