agent_list_webhooks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real value: it discloses the credential-store/auth context and, importantly, warns that returned content is untrusted and must not be followed (prompt-injection protection). It stops short of describing pagination or result size.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the middle sentence ('Acts as the identity in the local credential store') is ambiguous and reads like boilerplate that does not clearly earn its place, weakening the otherwise efficient structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the zero-param signature is fully covered. The description adds the key security caveat, making it largely complete for this simple tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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 first sentence states a specific verb+resource ('List your registered webhooks') and is clearly distinct from the sibling agent_register_webhook. The second sentence ('Acts as the identity in the local credential store') is confusing and slightly muddles the otherwise crisp purpose statement.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'; the description never states when to call this versus related tools like agent_register_webhook or when-not to call it. For a zero-arg list tool the intent is fairly obvious, but no explicit routing guidance is given.

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