List Webhooks

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

Annotations already cover key traits (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, etc.), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by specifying the filterable attributes (type, template, action, active status), which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior beyond just being a safe read operation. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 that front-loads the core action ('List all registered webhooks') and follows with filter details. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's low complexity (simple list with filters), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and 100% schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It lacks output schema, but the description doesn't need to explain return values. The main gap is minimal guidance on usage versus siblings, but overall it provides sufficient context for the agent to operate effectively.

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%, with each parameter clearly documented in the schema (e.g., 'type' as 'Filter by event type'). The description lists the filterable fields but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.

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 ('all registered webhooks'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'dual_get_webhook' (singular retrieval) and 'dual_create_webhook'/'dual_delete_webhook'/'dual_update_webhook' (mutations). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'dual_list_actions' or 'dual_list_templates', which would be needed for a perfect 5.

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 implies usage for retrieving webhooks with optional filtering, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'dual_get_webhook' (for a specific webhook) or other list tools. It mentions filtering capabilities, which suggests context, but lacks clear when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

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