List webhook subscriptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that with the OAuth scope requirements and the "data sensitivity: redacted" note, telling the agent the payload is sanitized. The "Does not require idempotency" line merely restates idempotentHint, so it is redundant rather than harmful.

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 key purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by a compact metadata block. Most lines earn their place, but "Does not require idempotency" is boilerplate that duplicates the annotation and could be dropped.

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 shape need not be described, and the description covers auth scopes, data sensitivity, and workspace scoping. The remaining gap is the behavior of the query parameters (pagination limit, includeHealth default of true), which an agent would need to invoke the tool efficiently.

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 reinforces the workspaceId/workspaceSlug override behavior by explaining that it overrides the environment-configured default, which is useful context the schema only hints at. However, the nested query parameters (limit, includeHealth) have no descriptions in the schema and no explanation in the description, leaving the includeHealth enum semantics undocumented.

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 outbound webhook subscriptions") and grounds it in the concrete endpoint GET /api/webhook-subscriptions. It is clearly distinguishable from the mutating siblings (create/update/delete) by the name and verb, though it never explicitly separates itself from the read-only siblings like luca_webhooks_deliveries_list or luca_webhooks_events_list.

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?

It gives the required scopes (webhooks:read, luca:read) and explains the workspace override pattern, which implies the calling context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over luca_webhooks_deliveries_list or luca_webhooks_events_list, which are the plausible confusable read tools in the sibling set.

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