List webhooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: ordering, no pagination, account cap of 10, empty-list behavior instead of error, the full item field set, and the important security fact that the signing secret is never returned and is only shown at creation time.

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 dense but every clause earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose footer, then covers response shape, edge cases, item contents, security constraints, and related tool routing without redundant filler or repetition of the title.

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 full burden of explaining return values and edge cases, and it does so completely: the envelope shape, the zero-results case, each item field, the secret exclusion, and how to use the result with sibling tools. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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)Skip context, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The schema coverage is effectively 100% because the input object is empty, and the description correctly focuses on the output contract rather than inventing input details.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List every webhook endpoint you own, oldest first.' It also adds a precise scope constraint ('never paginated, since the account cap is 10') that immediately differentiates this from webhook mutation siblings like tribeunal_create_webhook, tribeunal_update_webhook, and tribeunal_delete_webhook.

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 gives clear usage context, noting that an empty account returns an empty items array rather than an error, and it routes the agent to related tools for follow-up actions: 'Use a returned uuid with tribeunal_update_webhook... or tribeunal_delete_webhook.' It does not explicitly state a when-not-to-use condition, but the scope and alternatives are clear enough.

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