get_webhook_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the truncated bodies and omitted HTML behavior, which is key for setting expectations. It doesn't mention pagination or the response structure, but the existence of an output schema likely covers return details.

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 compact paragraph with a clear first sentence and then usage notes. Each sentence adds value: it covers purpose, usage, alternatives, and filtering. No fluff.

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 list/fetch operation, the description covers the key points: what it lists, limitations (truncated, no HTML), alternatives for full dump, newest item, and waiting. The output schema presumably documents the return fields. With three parameters, two have defaults and enums in the schema, and the description clarifies usage. It is complete for this tool's 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?

Schema coverage is only 33%: webhook_token is described as 'Webhook UUID returned by create_webhook', but limit and request_type lack description beyond defaults and enum values. The description adds context on how to use request_type to filter emails, and the default values are in the schema. It compensates somewhat, but could add more on limit behavior.

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 states the tool lists captured HTTP, email, or DNS events for a webhook, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like export_webhook_data, get_latest_request, and wait_for_request, making it clear this tool is for inspecting past events in a list.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use this tool: to inspect what already arrived, with explicit exclusions: bodies are truncated and HTML omitted, use export_webhook_data for full dump, use get_latest_request for newest item, and use wait_for_request or wait_for_email for waiting for new items. It also gives a filter example for emails.

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