Webhooks: List all webhooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: the auth mechanism (User API key in the api-access-token header) and that values pass through unchanged in Persian/other scripts, which matters for interpreting results.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first line, but the description then front-loads an endpoint path and a language/digit boilerplate note that is only marginally relevant to a list operation. It is acceptable but not tight.

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?

Auth and endpoint are covered, but for a list tool there is no mention of pagination, result limits, or ordering, and there is no output schema to fall back on. Adequate but with a clear gap for an agent expecting potentially large result sets.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema describing account_id as the numeric account ID. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List all webhooks in the account') and the endpoint reinforces it. It is clearly distinguishable from gapify_add_webhook/gapify_update_webhook/gapify_delete_webhook by verb, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the other webhook tools beyond the verb itself, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. An agent must infer that a read-only listing is appropriate.

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