list_webhook_deliveries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'cursor-paginated', which is a useful behavioral detail, but it does not disclose other important behaviors such as read-only nature, response format, or what fields are present in each delivery attempt. For a tool with zero annotation support, this is a significant gap—an agent is left to guess about ordering, filtering, or error semantics.

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 concise: one short sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the pagination detail in parentheses. There is no wasted wording, and it is immediately scannable. This is exactly the appropriate length for a simple list tool.

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 relatively simple, but without an output schema, the description should provide more context about what the response contains (e.g., delivery attempt fields, statuses) or any ordering. It mentions pagination but not what a 'delivery attempt' entails. The description is adequate for identifying the tool but leaves operational details unspecified, which is a moderate gap given the lack of an output schema.

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 67% (cursor and page_size are described, id is not). The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides—it doesn't explain that 'id' refers to the webhook ID, though this is implied by the tool name. It does reinforce pagination via 'cursor-paginated' but that is already in the schema. The description provides minimal added value over the schema; the missing id description is trivial but not compensated.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('delivery attempts for a webhook'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_webhooks' which lists webhooks themselves. The parenthetical 'cursor-paginated' adds a key operational detail. An agent can clearly identify this as the tool for retrieving delivery history for a specific webhook.

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 when to use this tool (to see delivery attempts for a webhook) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as 'list_webhooks' (which lists configured webhooks) or 'get_webhook' (which retrieves webhook config). There is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'do not use for...' guidance. The distinction is inferable from the name but not stated.

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