wp_get_custom_webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state behavior for missing or invalid IDs, whether the full webhook configuration is returned, or any required permissions. The absence of an output schema makes these gaps more significant.

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 sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the action, resource, and the identifying parameter, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter getter, so the description is minimally viable, but it is thin given the absence of annotations and output schema. It does not describe what the returned webhook object looks like, how to discover IDs, or how this webhook type relates to sibling form/WooCommerce webhook tools.

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 input schema already documents the only parameter, id, as 'Webhook ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond restating the by-ID relationship, 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a custom MCP webhook by ID.' It clearly indicates a singleton read operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, update, delete, list, or test webhooks.

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 'by ID' implies this tool should be used when a specific webhook ID is already known, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over wp_list_custom_webhooks or other webhook tools. Alternatives are not named or excluded.

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