List webhook endpoints

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

The annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that by explicitly stating the returned fields and, importantly, that signing secrets are never shown. Given no output schema, this is valuable disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the essential facts with no filler. The first sentence names the resource and fields, and the second adds a key security-relevant exclusion, all front-loaded and structured clearly.

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 read-only list operation, the description plus schema covers what the tool returns, the notable absence of signing secrets, and all optional filtering/pagination parameters. It is broadly complete, though it could have briefly noted that pagination is supported via cursor even though the schema already documents it.

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?

All three parameters already have full descriptions in the schema, including pagination defaults and projectId filtering semantics. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource as webhook endpoints and names the key returned fields: URL, events, and active status. It is not a tautology and is easily distinguished from create/update/delete webhook siblings, though the description itself lacks an explicit action verb.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to choose list_webhooks over create_webhook, update_webhook, or delete_webhook, nor any prerequisites or context for fetching webhook configurations.

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