Test PhishFort Webhook

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, but the description only says 'send test webhook delivery', which is vague. It does not disclose potential effects like whether the test modifies state or triggers real callbacks, nor does it add context beyond the annotations.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks essential information and does not justify its brevity with adequate coverage of the tool's purpose or usage.

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?

With 5 required parameters and no parameter descriptions, the tool is highly complex but the description provides virtually no context. Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description fails to explain what the test does, what errors might occur, or how to interpret results.

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% with 6 parameters, and the description provides no explanation of any parameter. It fails to add meaning beyond the schema's basic type/title fields, leaving the agent with no understanding of what each parameter represents.

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 name 'phishfort_test_webhook' and description 'Send test webhook delivery after approval' clearly indicate the tool's function: testing a webhook. It is specific about the action and resource, but does not differentiate from siblings like phishfort_create_webhook or phishfort_list_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 description says 'after approval', implying a prerequisite, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when to test vs. verify or other webhook operations. No exclusions or context are given.

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