webhooks_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: secrets are masked in output (so the agent shouldn't expect secret values) and the company context comes from a header or env var.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the output caveat and the auth prerequisite. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

Adequate for a simple, read-only, zero-required-param listing tool with no output schema — scope, masking, and auth are all covered. Minor gaps remain around ordering/pagination or whether delivery history is included, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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% and the single optional companyId is already documented, including the env-var override. The description merely restates that relationship rather than adding format or precedence detail 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List all webhook endpoints') and scopes it to 'the current company', which cleanly separates it from webhooks_get and the mutating webhooks_create/update/delete siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative endpoint explicitly.

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 requirement of an X-Company header (companyId param or STORNO_COMPANY_ID env var) gives useful precondition context, and 'all ... for the current company' implies the listing use case. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus webhooks_get or webhooks_deliveries, leaving selection to inference.

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