webhook-relay

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does it well: it reveals that the tool returns immediately, that delivery is retried in the background, and that success is eventually guaranteed. It stops short of noting possible duplicate deliveries or retry limits, but the core asynchronous side-effect behavior is clearly exposed.

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 tight sentences convey the action, HTTP methods, target, retry guarantee, immediate return, and job_id. There is no redundancy or filler, and the most decision-relevant behavior is front-loaded.

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 four-parameter webhook delivery tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential runtime contract: returns a job_id, delivers asynchronously, retries until success. It could be even more complete by explicitly routing the agent to 'status' for checking delivery and by noting likely duplicate-delivery semantics, but the main operational model is clear.

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%, and the schema already documents url, method, headers, and payload with clear meanings. The description adds the job_id/retry execution model, but no parameter-specific insight beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 states a precise verb and resource: 'Deliver a webhook' to a URL via POST/PUT/PATCH, and clarifies the fire-and-forget nature with a job_id. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'status' tool, which presumably checks delivery results.

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 clearly communicates the intended use case: send a webhook and rely on guaranteed background retries. It does not explicitly mention the sibling 'status' tool or state when not to use this tool, but the immediate-return/job_id behavior strongly implies pairing with status for follow-up.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists possible statuses and states it checks delivery status. It does not disclose error handling or response format but is adequate for a simple read operation. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the action. No wasted words or 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?

No output schema exists; the description lists possible statuses in parentheses. It adequately conveys the tool's purpose but does not detail the response structure. For a simple tool, this is mostly complete.

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 repeats the parameter's source (job_id from webhook_relay) but adds no format or validation details beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the verb (Check), resource (delivery status of a webhook job), and scope (by job_id). It distinguishes from the sibling 'relay' tool which likely triggers the job.

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 clearly implies usage after obtaining a job_id from the relay tool but does not explicitly state when-not to use or exclude alternatives. It gives clear context for usage.

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