get_webhook_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return content (status codes, retry counts, payload excerpts), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it omits retention window, ordering, pagination/limit behavior, and whether payloads are truncated.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource and the return contents in order of importance; nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

It is a read-only retrieval tool with only 2 params, so the description is close to sufficient, and it covers return fields in the absence of an output schema. Still missing are the required-parameter expectation and the limit/recency semantics an agent needs to call it well.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter meaning. The required webhookId is only obliquely implied by 'for a webhook', and the limit parameter (default 50, max 200) is never mentioned at all.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve recent delivery logs for a webhook', and it enumerates what the logs contain (status codes, retry counts, payload excerpts). This clearly separates it from get_webhook (config details) and list_webhooks (enumeration), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 statement of when to call this versus get_webhook, test_webhook, or list_webhooks, no prerequisites (e.g. that a valid webhookId is required), and no guidance on how far back 'recent' reaches. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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