get_webhooks

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 discloses that the tool retrieves a list of webhooks, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits. For a simple, parameterless read, this is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence in Russian that conveys the complete action. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler, and every word earns its place. This is exemplary conciseness for such a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward purpose, the description sufficiently communicates that it returns a list of webhooks ('список вебхуков' implies a list result). There are no complex behaviors or hidden requirements. Slightly more detail about the structure of the returned list could be added, but the description is complete enough for a tool of this simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to clarify parameter meanings. The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is required. The schema is empty, so there is nothing to compensate for.

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 ('Получить' = get) and a specific resource ('список вебхуков' = list of webhooks). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_webhook and delete_webhook by signaling a read operation. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose itself implies usage: to retrieve existing webhooks. There is no mention of prerequisites or when to prefer it, which is a minor gap. The context of the sibling tools (create/delete) makes the use case obvious, so this is acceptable but not explicit.

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