webhooks_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description discloses that this is a read-only listing tool ('List all available webhook event types'), implicitly signaling a non-destructive operation. It adds structure information (categories and descriptions are included) that goes beyond the bare name. While it doesn't disclose pagination or size of the result, for a zero-parameter listing tool the behavioral profile is reasonably transparent.

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 first sentence states what it does and what it returns; the second gives the practical use-case. It is tightly written with no fluff or repetition, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter, no-output-schema reference/discovery tool. Given the minimal complexity and the absence of structured field documentation requirements, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it returns (event types with descriptions and categories), the categories involved, and how to use the result (discover valid event names for webhook config). There is nothing substantive missing for the agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 has 0 parameters, and the schema is empty. The description makes clear that no input is needed and that the output is a listing of event types with their descriptions and categories. Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adequately conveys what the consumer receives and how to use that output downstream.

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 the tool lists available webhook event types with descriptions and categories. It names specific categories (invoices, payments, clients, sync, proforma) and explicitly states its purpose is to discover valid event names for webhook configuration. This distinguishes it from siblings like webhooks_list and webhooks_get, which manage actual webhook subscriptions, while this tool provides the vocabulary of valid event types.

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 explicitly frames when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover valid event names for webhook configuration.' This is clear contextual guidance that positions the tool as a discovery/reference tool preceding webhooks_create/webhooks_update. It doesn't state explicit negative cases (when NOT to use it), but the 'discover valid event names' framing makes the use case reasonably explicit. A sibling differentiation is implied but not explicitly named.

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