List webhook deliveries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond annotations: required scopes (webhooks:read, luca:read) and data sensitivity (redacted). The 'does not require idempotency' line is mildly confusing against idempotentHint=true but refers to the request contract, not the endpoint.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then compact operational metadata (operation, scopes, workspace override) each on its own line. Slight redundancy between 'Required scopes: webhooks:read' and 'Required OAuth scope: luca:read', but overall tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the auth/scope requirements plus workspace override are covered. The remaining gap is pagination/filtering behavior for the list (limit semantics), which is minor given the schema and output schema.

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 coverage is 67%; workspaceId and workspaceSlug already carry descriptions in the schema that the description merely restates. The description adds no syntax or behavior detail for the undocumented 'limit' parameter, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 fits when the schema does most of the work.

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+resource ('List webhook deliveries') and even names the underlying operation (GET /api/webhook-subscriptions/deliveries), which is unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish this from nearby siblings like luca_webhooks_events_list or luca_webhooks_deliveries_replay.

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 only usage-like sentence is the workspace override instruction, which is really parameter guidance rather than when-to-use. There is no statement of when to prefer this over luca_webhooks_events_list or luca_webhooks_deliveries_replay, and no prerequisites or exclusions beyond the scope listing.

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