list_webhook_deliveries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals an important edge case: deliveries to down apps are included with response_code 0. It also tells the agent what kind of data to expect (code + body). It does not mention ordering or pagination, but the output schema covers return shape.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds the key edge case and filter capability. Every clause earns its place with no wasted words.

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 simple historical listing tool with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It identifies the resource, the returned content, a notable edge case, and the available filters. It could be slightly more explicit about the limit parameter, but the schema supplies the default and type.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that channel and app are filters, which adds meaning to those two parameters. The third parameter, limit, is not described, though its name, type, and default in the schema make its purpose reasonably inferable.

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 names a specific resource ('webhook delivery history') and specifies exactly what it contains: the code and body returned by each app, including failures with response_code 0. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_webhooks, which would list registered webhooks rather than delivery outcomes.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need a history of what apps returned for webhook deliveries, and optionally filtered by channel and app. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for selection among the sibling tools.

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