get_webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses the return content: event description, payload structure with expanded $ref schemas, and a sample JSON body. This gives a clear picture of the tool's behavior and output, though it doesn't cover error handling or edge cases, which are less critical for a read-only get operation.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: first states the primary action, second details the return value, third gives parameter sourcing guidance. It is front-loaded, concise, and free of redundancy.

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 single-parameter read operation, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to find valid parameters. There is no output schema, and the description sufficiently explains the output structure without needing to enumerate all fields.

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 coverage is 100% for the 'event' parameter. The description adds further meaning by stating the event name should come from list_webhooks or search_docs, providing sourcing guidance beyond the schema's example list. This elevates the baseline from 3 to 4.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the full payload schema and an example for a single Pancake webhook event.' It uses a specific verb ('get'), identifies the resource (Pancake webhook event), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_endpoint and list_webhooks by focusing on webhook payload schemas.

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 provides clear context on usage: it tells the user to pass an event name from list_webhooks or search_docs, implying when this tool is appropriate (when you need details for a single event). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the mention of 'single' and references to other tools provide effective guidance.

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