reddit_monitor_webhook_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the secret is never returned and is only shown once at creation, which prevents an agent from hunting for it or expecting it in the response.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the primary behavior (list all webhooks for the caller) is front-loaded and the caveat about the secret follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent must know before calling: scope (caller's account) and the one surprising field behavior (no secret returned). Return-shape details like pagination or webhook object fields are unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a simple list operation.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. No parameter-level information is needed or 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 description uses a specific verb ('List') plus resource ('every webhook registered on the caller's account'), so it is immediately clear what the tool returns. It names reddit_monitor_webhook_create only to explain where the signing secret comes from, not to route the agent between list/create/delete/test siblings, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'call this to see existing webhooks,' but there is no statement of when to prefer this over reddit_monitor_webhook_test or reddit_monitor_deliveries, and no prerequisites or conditions are given. It notes the secret is available at creation time, which is useful context but not routing guidance.

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