ghost_list_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 states a read-only listing operation but gives no details about pagination, result limits, or the structure of the response. The behavior is simple and clear (returns all webhooks), but the description lacks depth about potential side effects or environmental constraints that an agent might need to know.

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 sentence with no filler or redundancy. It immediately states the purpose and resource, and is perfectly concise for a tool of this simplicity. Every word 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't mention what the response looks like (e.g., an array of webhook objects) or whether there are any ordering/filtering behaviors. For a list-all operation, these details could be helpful but are not strictly required. The description is adequate but leaves missing context that an agent might need to parse the response 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms an empty object. With no parameters to explain, the description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate. Baseline 4 applies for 0-parameter tools, and nothing detracts from this.

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 ('List') and resource ('configured webhooks in Ghost CMS'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ghost_create_webhook and ghost_delete_webhook by focusing on the listing operation. Even without explicit sibling comparison, the intent is unambiguous.

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 implies the use case—when you need to see all webhooks—but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over other list tools (e.g., ghost_list_posts) or when not to use it. It doesn't mention alternative tools or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the resource name.

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