keel_list_webhooks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notably states that the signing secret is never returned, which is a key safety/privacy guarantee. It also lists the exact fields returned, giving a clear picture of the tool's behavior. A simple read-only list tool needs no more than this.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource, the second adds a single crucial caveat. Every word earns its place; no filler.

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 zero-parameter list operation, the description covers the resource, the key response fields, and an important behavioral guarantee. It does not mention pagination, but that may not apply, and the sibling context clarifies the tool family. Overall it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed; the input schema is empty and fully covered.

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') and resource ('workspace webhook subscriptions'), and explicitly enumerates the returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like keel_create_webhook and keel_delete_webhook, which handle mutation of the same resource.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever webhook subscriptions need to be listed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the routing logic to inference.

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