List Webhooks

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value beyond that: it discloses the admin/owner access requirement, the prerequisite organization context, and the shape of the returned data. No contradiction with the read-only annotation.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: core purpose, return contents, then access and context requirements. The purpose is front-loaded and the whole description is under 50 words with zero redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the important returned fields and the pagination parameters are fully documented in the schema. It is nearly complete, but could go further by explicitly naming list_webhook_deliveries as the sibling to use when delivery logs are needed.

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 skip, take, and projectId are already fully documented with defaults, range, and format. The description merely echoes the project-filter concept without adding new parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'List configured webhooks for the organization, optionally filtered by project.' The term 'configured webhooks' plus the return details (URL, subscribed events, enabled status) clearly distinguish it from the closely named sibling list_webhook_deliveries, which would cover delivery history rather than configuration.

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?

Provides clear usage context: it names the prerequisite ('call set_context first') and the access restriction (organization admins and owners only). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for when delivery history is needed, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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