list_webhooks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states the output (each event's name and summary) and clarifies the nature of webhooks ('HTTP POST notifications... in real time'). While it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination or auth, the tool's simple list behavior is sufficiently disclosed. No contradictions with existing annotations (none provided).

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 compact: a lead sentence stating the core function, a sentence explaining the return value and a pointer to get_webhook, and a brief definition of webhooks. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff. The structure is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), and the description covers the essential return information (name and summary) and the next-step guidance (get_webhook). It lacks details on potential edge cases like empty lists or ordering, but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably complete. The mention of webhook semantics adds useful context.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters need explanation. The description adds no parameter-specific details because there are none, but this does not reduce the score.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'List all Pancake webhook events.' It clearly identifies the tool's function as a listing operation and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_webhook (which fetches a single webhook's details) by focusing on the enumeration of all events.

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 explicitly directs users to 'Pass an event name to get_webhook for the full payload schema and an example,' providing a concrete alternative for deeper investigation. This clearly states when to use this tool (to see available events) versus another tool (to get detailed payload info).

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