Show webhooks

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so 'Changes nothing' is largely redundant. The description does add non-obvious value: secrets are redacted from the returned subscriptions, and the delivery data is limited to the 'latest' ones with their outcomes — details not present in annotations or any output schema.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the sensitive fact (secrets excluded) is stated early. It reads as a sentence fragment without a leading verb, which slightly hurts front-loading but costs no extra length.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, that secrets are stripped, and that nothing is mutated. It does not say how many 'latest' deliveries are included, a small remaining gap for a tool with no output schema to fall back on.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter information is missing.

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 fragment 'The webhook subscriptions ... and the latest deliveries with how each went' makes clear it returns webhook config plus recent delivery outcomes, but it never states a verb ('show' appears only in the title) and never names twin_set_webhooks as the mutation counterpart. Still, an agent can tell this is the read-only inspection tool for webhooks rather than a scenario/faults tool.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling twin_set_webhooks, which is the obvious alternative for changing webhook configuration. The only steer is the phrase 'Changes nothing', which is a behavioral statement rather than routing guidance.

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