gitlab_list_webhooks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It lacks behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the output format looks like (e.g., pagination, fields returned), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, output format, or error handling, which are crucial for a tool that interacts with a system like GitLab. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 the schema fully documents the single parameter 'project_id'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3 as the schema handles 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('webhooks for a project'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_webhook' (singular) or 'gitlab_list_integrations' (which might include webhooks), missing full sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like retrieving all webhooks versus a specific one, or how it relates to other list tools (e.g., 'gitlab_list_integrations'), leaving usage context implied at best.

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