webhooks_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one important behavior: the secret is always masked in the response, and it directs users to webhooks_regenerate_secret for a full secret. This is a genuinely useful behavioral disclosure for a read tool, though it doesn't describe the rest of the response fields or any permission requirements.

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, both information-dense, no filler. The first states the core purpose and the second discloses the masking behavior with a pointer to an alternative tool. Excellent front-loading of the primary purpose.

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 single-resource retrieval tool with a straightforward purpose, this description is reasonably complete. It explains the retrieval scope ('full configuration'), discloses the mask behavior, and names the alternative for obtaining a full secret. No output schema exists, and the description doesn't describe the full response structure, but for a config-get operation this is minimally sufficient. The masking caveat is the most important edge case and is handled well.

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 schema covers both parameters at 100% (uuid as 'Webhook endpoint UUID' and companyId as 'Company UUID (overrides STORNO_COMPANY_ID env var)'). The description doesn't add much parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents, but with 100% coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description's mention of 'single webhook endpoint' indirectly reinforces that uuid identifies one endpoint.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pattern: 'Retrieve the full configuration of a single webhook endpoint.' This clearly distinguishes it from webhooks_list (which returns multiple), webhooks_delete (writes/destroys), and webhooks_regenerate_secret (modifies the secret). The scope ('single', 'full configuration') adds precision that differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 names webhooks_regenerate_secret as the alternative to use when a full secret is needed, which is a helpful pointer. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over webhooks_list, nor does it discuss when NOT to use it. The sibling 'get' pattern in this API (e.g., invoices_get, delivery_notes_get) implies single-resource retrieval, but the description could more explicitly differentiate from the list variant.

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