make_list_hooks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or has any side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. While listing is typically safe, the description should explicitly state its read-only nature.

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 sentences, no wasted words. Essential information (action, output, parameter behavior, sibling reference) is front-loaded and efficiently communicated.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return fields and references a sibling tool. The parameter explanation is sufficient. It could mention if pagination exists or if it's limited, but overall it is complete for its complexity.

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 input schema has one parameter with 100% description coverage. The description adds context about the fallback behavior, which is consistent with the schema. However, it does not provide additional details beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action 'list', the resource 'webhooks for a team', and specifies the returned fields (id, name, webhook URL). It also differentiates this tool from the sibling 'make_trigger_webhook' by noting the URL is used by that tool. No ambiguity.

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 explains that the output includes the webhook URL used by make_trigger_webhook, implying a use case. It also clarifies the fallback behavior for team_id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for similar purposes.

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