list_webhook_deliveries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the semantics of the returned data ('whether Stables sent them and what the endpoint answered') and implies a read-only, recent-first listing, but says nothing about auth requirements, ordering guarantees, or pagination beyond what the schema's pageSize already states.

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, zero waste. The core action is front-loaded and the diagnostic use case follows immediately; every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema and a read-only list tool, the description adequately previews what records contain (status, retry state). It omits ordering/pagination behavior and any note about what happens when no deliveries exist, but nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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%, with each of the three filters documented including the status enum values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mentions status and retry state conceptually but adds no filter syntax or combination guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 — listing webhook delivery attempts — and adds what each record contains (HTTP status, retry state). It is distinguishable from the sibling list_webhooks (which manages webhook configurations) by the word 'deliveries', though it never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering scenario: 'the first place to look when an integration is not receiving events.' That is clear usage context, but it stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. list_webhooks for configuration problems) or stating exclusions.

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