check_for_callbacks

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 only states 'Quick check' but does not disclose whether it returns all callbacks, filters by parameters, or is read-only. Critical behavioral traits like rate limits, return format, and state impact are omitted.

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, each earning its place: the first defines the action and resource, the second provides use-case context. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is adequate for a simple check tool but lacks return value details and error handling. It does not fully differentiate from siblings like get_webhook_requests or search_requests, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not elaborate on how parameters interact or provide usage examples.

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 specifies a 'Quick check if any OOB callbacks have been received,' defining a specific verb ('check') and resource ('OOB callbacks'). It distinguishes from siblings by framing it as a quick check versus more detailed searches (e.g., search_requests). The context for bug bounty adds purpose clarity.

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 provides implicit when-to-use guidance by mentioning bug bounty and specific vulnerability types (SSRF, XXE, blind injection). However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives among the 22 sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer when not to use it.

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