List webhook deliveries

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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description discloses retention (30 days), ordering (newest first), status semantics (pending/delivered/failed after 6 attempts), permanent-error behavior, and the important constraint that payloads are never returned. This is rich behavioral context that an agent needs in order to interpret results correctly.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph with zero obvious waste. It front-loads read-only status and then proceeds from core behavior to status semantics to the omitted-parameter fallback and usage scenario.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return contents, and it does so: event status, attempts, last HTTP status/error, next retry time, and the fact that payloads are excluded. It also covers the alternate listing mode, making the definition complete enough for 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%, so the schema already documents limit, cursor, and webhookId. The description reinforces the optional webhookId behavior, but it does not add syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides for pagination parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: listing a webhook's delivery history. It also defines ordering, retention, and the fallback behavior when webhookId is omitted, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_webhooks tool.

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?

It explicitly says to use the tool when a webhook seems to have stopped, and it explains that omitting webhookId lists workspace webhooks so the caller can choose one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the operational context is clear.

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