webhook 详情

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses that this is a GET/read operation with no side effects, and it details the unified response envelope and data fields. It also clarifies that httpMethod/headers/body are only returned for custom webhook types, which is useful behavioral context.

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 and well-structured: endpoint, required parameter, response envelope, then data fields. The enum list for webhookType is dense but informative and earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 one-parameter detail endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers the request parameter and fully describes the response data. It could add more about error handling or auth, but nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for webhookId with type and description, so the baseline is 3. The description restates webhookId as required but adds little new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The extra enum detail about webhookType is about the response, not the request parameter.

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 explicitly states 'GET /open/webhook/detail - 查看 webhook 详情' with a specific verb and resource. The endpoint and field list clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like open_webhook_list, open_webhook_add, and open_webhook_delete.

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: it is for viewing a single webhook's details and requires a webhookId. However, it does not explicitly contrast with open_webhook_list or state when the detail view is preferable to other webhook operations.

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