Как принимать вебхуки WATA

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a reference, which implies it is read-only and non-destructive. However, it does not explicitly say it makes no side effects or that it is safe. The description covers the content but omits explicit safety guarantees, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Returns a reference') and then lists the key content areas. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 is a simple guide with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects an agent needs: what the guide covers (address setting, response, events, signature) and when to use it. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and the schema is empty. It correctly adds no unnecessary detail about inputs.

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 explicitly states it returns a reference on receiving webhook notifications, covering specific aspects like where to set the address, what to return, event types, and signature verification. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wata_webhook_verify or wata_webhook_public_key by being a guide rather than a verification or key tool.

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 clearly indicates when to use it: 'Useful before writing a handler.' This gives practical context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, though for a documentation tool this is fairly adequate.

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