gitflic_webhook_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that -- no note on the slimmed default response, the project scoping requirement, or error behavior when the uuid is unknown.

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?

A single short sentence with zero padding and the key selector front-loaded. However, brevity here edges into under-specification rather than true conciseness, since nothing substantive is conveyed.

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?

With four parameters (two required), no output schema, and half the parameters undocumented, the definition is too thin. It does not tell the agent how the required project interacts with uuid, nor what the default slimmed response looks like, so correctness depends on guesswork.

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 50%: raw and fields are documented in the schema, while project and uuid have no schema descriptions. The description only confirms that uuid selects the webhook; it never explains that project is a required scope qualifier or whether the uuid is project-local, leaving a required parameter opaque.

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?

"Get one webhook by uuid" gives a specific verb (get), resource (webhook), and cardinality/selection key (one, by uuid), which distinguishes it from sibling verbs like gitflic_webhook_list, create, delete, and reveal_secret. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, but the single-record lookup intent is unmistakable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of gitflic_webhook_list or gitflic_webhook_reveal_secret, and no stated prerequisites such as needing a project context or where the uuid comes from. The agent must infer that list-then-get is the flow.

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