get_webhooks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes a read-only operation (list/fetch) and mentions the structure of returned data. It does not disclose potential restrictions like authentication or rate limits, but the behavior is straightforward and non-destructive.

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?

Two sentences front-load the core action and then add relevant detail. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description is fully adequate. It explains both usage modes and the key response content (subscriptions, agents, event types), so an agent can understand what to expect.

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 100% for the single parameter. The tool description reinforces the parameter's role by explaining the two behaviors (list all when omitted, fetch single when provided) and adds context about the response containing subscriptions, which goes beyond 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 description clearly states verb-resource pairs ('List the organization's webhooks' or 'fetch a single one by ID'), distinguishing between the two behaviors. It also details what is included in the response (subscriptions with agents and event types), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains the two modes of use (list all vs fetch by ID) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_webhook or get_webhook_events. The usage context is implied rather than stated with exclusions or alternatives.

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