tickerbot_list_webhook_deliveries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses the return shape ('Returns metadata only (status, attempt, response code, error)'), a critical limitation ('the POST body is not stored'), and ordering behavior ('newest-first'). This goes beyond what the schema provides and gives the agent essential expectations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main function and purpose, then adds a valuable limitation. Every word earns its place, and no redundant information is present.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with a comprehensive schema, the description covers all essential context: purpose, scope, ordering, use case, and return limitations. Since there is no output schema, the explicit mention of metadata fields (status, attempt, response code, error) is particularly helpful. The description and schema together fully equip an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, with detailed parameter descriptions (time formats for from/to, limit default, cursor opacity, status enum). The description adds no parameter-specific details, but the schema already documents them thoroughly, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List recent deliveries (pings and fires) for a webhook, newest-first' with a specific verb and resource, plus a use case ('for diagnosing failures'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_webhook (config) and test_webhook (send test ping), and from list_webhooks which lists webhooks themselves.

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 phrase 'for diagnosing failures' provides a clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but it implies this is the tool for inspecting delivery history. It could be improved by explicitly distinguishing from test_webhook, but the guidance is sufficient.

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