spraay_webhook_test

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

The description discloses that the tool sends a ping event, data persists in Supabase, and costs $0.002 USDC, adding context beyond annotations (which indicate mutation but not destructive). No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences, each substantive and without redundancy. Front-loaded with the action and purpose, followed by persistence and cost details. No fluff.

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?

Given the simple input schema (one parameter) and presence of output schema, the description is complete enough. It could be improved by noting whether the call is synchronous or async, but current content is sufficient.

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% and the parameter 'webhookId' is already described in the schema. The description adds a placeholder example ('whk_abc123'), providing marginal additional value.

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 verb 'Send a test ping event' and the resource 'registered webhook', with purpose 'to verify delivery and signature validation'. It distinguishes from sibling webhook tools (register, list, delete) by specifying test functionality.

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 implies usage after registering a webhook, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention prerequisites like webhook registration or activation. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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