mautic_get_webhook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the signing secret field is stripped before the result is returned or cached, which warns the agent that the response is not a verbatim API record. It says nothing about error behavior for missing IDs or about the shape of the returned object.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. Purpose comes first, the endpoint second, and the one non-obvious behavior third - an efficient ordering with nothing to cut.

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 only one parameter, no nested objects and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and flags the one surprising aspect of the response (secret removal). It is close to complete; the missing piece is a hint about where to get webhook_id and what a lookup failure looks like.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden for webhook_id, and it only indirectly does so via the {id} placeholder in the path. It never states that the ID may be passed as an integer or a numeric string, nor how to obtain a valid ID (e.g., from mautic_list_webhooks). This is partial compensation for the documentation gap.

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 specific verb and resource ("Get one webhook") and even includes the underlying endpoint GET /api/hooks/{id}, so an agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling mautic_list_webhooks or mention when a single fetch is preferable to listing.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no prerequisite stated (e.g., that the webhook must already exist or where to obtain the ID). The only implicit signal is that this fetches one record by identifier, which a reader must infer from the name and path.

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