get-webhook

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the HTTP method (GET) and the required OAuth scope (webhooks:read), which helps the agent assess authorization requirements. No contradiction exists.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, resource, HTTP method, and scope with no filler. Every element earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter read operation, the description is nearly complete: it includes the endpoint, scope, and intent. It could be strengthened by noting that the agent should use this tool when it needs a specific webhook by id, but the schema and annotations cover the remaining operational essentials.

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 coverage is 100%, and the only parameter 'id' is already described as 'Webhook id.' The description adds little beyond showing that the id is used in the URL path, which does not substantially change the agent's understanding of the parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a webhook endpoint'), along with the exact HTTP path. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-webhooks, create-webhook, update-webhook, and delete-webhook without needing to inspect schemas.

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 context that this tool fetches a single webhook endpoint, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus list-webhooks or mention any exclusions. Usage is implied by the singular resource and id parameter, not explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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