openmausbot_list_webhooks

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

The description adds the behavioral note that secret material is redacted, which is important for an agent to know to avoid expecting secrets. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description complements these with a security-relevant detail. It also specifies that it lists both webhooks and attempts, which is additional behavior.

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 that states the primary action and a key detail (redaction). It is front-loaded and efficient, with no unnecessary words.

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's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, idempotent), the description is largely sufficient. It clarifies the resource (webhooks and attempts) and the redaction policy. The presence of an output schema means the return structure is documented elsewhere. Minor omissions like pagination or scope are not critical for this simple list operation.

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, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. There is nothing for the description to add regarding parameter semantics. Baseline of 4 applies.

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's function: listing webhooks and their delivery attempts, with secret material redacted. This is specific and distinguishes it from other list tools like list_bots or list_routines. The mention of redaction adds clarity about the returned data.

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 provide usage context or conditions for when to use this tool over alternatives. While the tool name and purpose make it obvious that it is for listing webhooks, there is no explicit guidance about scenarios or prerequisites. Given the many sibling tools, a note about when to use this (e.g., to inspect webhook configurations) would improve clarity.

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