Danh sách webhook email

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on pagination, result ordering, or whether unregistered webhooks appear — so it earns little credit for behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two short clauses with the resource front-loaded and no filler. The Vietnamese/English duplication is redundant for a monolingual agent but does not obscure the intent.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. It never says what the listing returns (event types, endpoints, status) or how it behaves on an empty configuration, leaving gaps an agent may care about.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level detail is needed or missing.

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 pairs a clear verb ("liệt kê" / "list") with a specific resource ("email webhooks") and frames it as inspecting an app's event configuration. It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling monapay_list_webhooks, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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?

"Use to inspect registered email webhooks" implies the usage context (checking event configuration) but names no alternatives, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use conditions. With mail_webhook_create, mail_webhook_test, and monapay_list_webhooks in the sibling set, routing guidance is left to inference.

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