list_webhooks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it usefully discloses that secrets are never returned and that lastStatus/lastDeliveryAt are included. However, it omits permission requirements, pagination/ordering behavior, and whether the list can be empty, which are the traits an agent would still need.

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 sentences with no filler; the scope statement is front-loaded and the parenthetical adds a genuine constraint rather than restating the name.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, safety (no secrets), and the key return fields. Missing only secondary details like pagination or required permissions, so it is close to complete for this complexity level.

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 is one parameter (projectId) at 0% schema description coverage. 'On a project' implicitly ties the call to a project identifier, but the description adds no format, required/optional status, or default information beyond that implication.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (outbound webhooks) scoped to a project, which cleanly separates it from the mutating siblings create_webhook, update_webhook, and delete_webhook. The parenthetical about secrets clarifies the read-only nature of the operation.

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 phrase 'so you can spot a failing receiver' implies a diagnostic use case and the tool is obviously the read-only counterpart to the webhook mutation siblings, but it never explicitly says when to prefer it or when not to use it. Usage must be inferred.

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