List webhooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes further with context structured fields cannot carry: receiver URLs are truncated to the host because they often embed a secret, and signing secrets are never returned. That is exactly the kind of privacy/security behavior an agent needs before relaying output to a user.

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?

Front-loaded with the safety note and the returned-field list, and the parenthetical about secrets is well placed. The opening 'Read-only.' is slightly redundant with readOnlyHint=true, and the second sentence is long and comma-stacked, but no sentence is wasted.

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 must describe the return shape — and it does, field by field, including the important caveat that URLs are host-only. Combined with the downstream-tool pointers and the creation path, an agent has everything needed to call this and act on the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It spends its words instead on the shape of the returned records, which is the relevant substitute here.

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 enumerates exactly what the workspace resource contains (id, receiver host, subscribed events, enabled flag), which pins down a single-resource list operation despite the noun-phrase phrasing. Naming list_webhook_deliveries and test_webhook as the follow-on consumers separates it from those siblings without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: take the returned id to list_webhook_deliveries or test_webhook, and notes that webhooks are created via Dashboard → Settings → Webhooks rather than an API call — useful since no create_webhook sibling exists. It stops short of stating when not to call it (e.g., that deliveries/attempt history lives elsewhere), so it is clear context rather than a full decision tree.

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