mautic_list_webhooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact – that the signing secret is stripped from every webhook before the result is returned or cached – which is valuable security context an agent could not infer. It does not cover pagination behavior or whether the redaction also affects filtering/search results.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then endpoint, then the surprising behavior. Every sentence carries information; the raw endpoint path is the only marginally redundant element given the tool name.

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 six-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key data-handling caveat but leaves three parameters and the result shape undocumented. Adequate to call the tool, but an agent cannot predict filtering/sorting semantics from the definition alone.

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?

Three of six parameters (minimal, orderBy, orderByDir) have no schema description, leaving coverage at 50%, and the description says nothing about any parameter. With half the schema undocumented, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 webhooks') plus the underlying endpoint (GET /api/hooks), which is enough to separate it from mautic_get_webhook, mautic_create_webhook, and mautic_delete_webhook by name alone. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' – an agent can infer this is the collection-endpoint counterpart to mautic_get_webhook. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of when to prefer listing versus fetching a single webhook, and no note on pagination strategy despite limit/start params.

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