List webhook events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive hints, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: required scopes (webhooks:read, luca:read), data sensitivity 'redacted', and the fallback-to-sample-payload behavior when a workspace has no events. The 'does not require idempotency' line is slightly confusing next to idempotentHint=true, but describes idempotency keys, not repeatability, so it is not a contradiction.

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 tool's behavior in the first sentence, followed by compact structured metadata lines. No filler sentences; each line carries operational information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers auth scopes, sensitivity, fallback behavior, and workspace override. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly against a large sibling set.

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% and the description adds meaning beyond it: workspaceId/workspaceSlug override the environment-configured default workspace, and 'of one type' explains why type is required. The limit parameter's range and default are left entirely to the 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 opening sentence gives a specific verb (list), resource (canonical webhook events), scope (one type), ordering (newest first), and payload shape (delivered payload fields). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling luca_webhooks_deliveries_list and luca_webhooks_events_replay, though it never names those alternatives directly.

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 supplies operational context (the GET endpoint, required scopes, the no-events fallback to a sample payload) but never states when to choose this tool over the sibling deliveries/replay tools. Workspace override guidance is parameter help rather than usage guidance, so usage is only implied.

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