mautic_list_webhook_triggers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds little beyond that — only the raw endpoint and the shape of each row — and says nothing about whether the trigger list is static, instance-specific, or paginated.

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 sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The middle sentence naming the HTTP endpoint is of marginal use to an agent and could be dropped without loss, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose and the returned row fields, which is most of what an agent needs. The absence of an output schema is partly offset by naming the row attributes, though no example values or sample labels are given.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-parameter schema applies. The description avoids inventing filtering options the schema does not support, which is the correct behavior.

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?

"List webhook trigger names" gives a specific verb and resource, and the endpoint path confirms it is a read of the trigger registry rather than webhook instances. However, it never distinguishes itself from the adjacent siblings mautic_list_webhooks or mautic_list_point_triggers, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 statement of when to call this versus the alternatives; the agent must infer that triggers are the event catalogue used when constructing a webhook (e.g. via mautic_create_webhook). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of what to do with the returned names.

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