list_webhooks

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

Annotations already convey that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds the HTTP endpoint but no details about pagination, authentication, or response behavior, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 definition is very short, but 'Get Webhooks' essentially restates the tool name and the endpoint line is largely redundant with it. It is not bloated, but it also does not use the available space to add meaningful substance.

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 tool with an output schema and rich annotations, this is nearly sufficient to invoke correctly. The main gap is that it does not distinguish itself from the similar sibling list_v2_user_webhooks, so selection among related tools is underspecified.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. This matches the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Get Webhooks') and includes the concrete endpoint 'GET /webhooks', so an agent knows it retrieves webhooks. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list_v2_user_webhooks or clarify which webhook scope is returned, so it stops short of a 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus list_v2_user_webhooks or create_webhooks. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or contextual selection criteria; the agent must infer usage entirely from the name and endpoint.

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