webhooks_list

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 usefully discloses that secrets are masked in the listing, which is important behavioral context for a read operation. However, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., whether metadata like created_at, event subscriptions are included) or pagination behavior for a potentially large list. It mentions the X-Company header requirement, which is helpful auth context.

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 sentences total, each earning its place: the purpose statement, the secret-masking behavioral note, and the auth requirement. No fluff, no redundancy, appropriate front-loading of the core intent.

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 list tool with one simple string parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, auth requirement, and a key behavioral detail (secret masking). However, there's no mention of output shape (fields per webhook, pagination) which could matter for an AI agent consuming the result, especially given the absence of an output schema to compensate.

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% — the single companyId parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds that it overrides the STORNO_COMPANY_ID env var, which contributes context beyond the schema. Since coverage is high and there's only one parameter, baseline 3 is appropriate with slight credit for the env var override clarification.

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 all webhook endpoints for the current company, with an explicit scope (company-scoped). It distinguishes from siblings like webhooks_get (which retrieves a single endpoint by ID), webhooks_create/update/delete (mutations). It's a clear verb+resource+scope statement, though it doesn't explicitly name its sibling counterpart webhooks_get.

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 states the tool operates on 'the current company' and mentions the X-Company header requirement (companyId param or STORNO_COMPANY_ID env var). This gives clear context on when to use it — when you need a full listing of webhook endpoints. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention webhooks_get as the alternative for fetching a single webhook.

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