List webhooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail of what each integration records (URL, environment, event filters), which partially substitutes for the absent output schema, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or auth requirements despite cursor parameters.

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 no filler; the resource and its payload fields come first and nothing is redundant.

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 read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage, the description plus annotations give an agent enough to invoke it correctly, and the field enumeration compensates for the missing output schema. Only pagination behavior and result ordering are left unstated, a minor gap.

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 100%, so limit, project_id, and starting_after are fully documented in the schema itself (including the 1-100 range and cursor semantics). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (project's webhook integrations), and the parenthetical enumerates the returned fields (URL, environment, event filters), which cleanly separates it from list-webhook-deliveries. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling as the contrast point, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus alternatives. With siblings like list-webhook-deliveries, create-webhook-integration, update/delete-webhook-integration, and send-test-webhook in the same family, the agent gets no signal about selection criteria or preconditions.

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