scf_get_webhook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds concrete behavioral context by enumerating what detail is returned: delivery stats, allowed evidence IDs, and rate-limit configuration, which tells the agent what to expect. It doesn't describe pagination, response shape, or error conditions, but for a simple read-only get one resource, this is adequate; no contradiction with annotations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the three substantive return categories. Every word earns its place; no fluff, no repetition of the title, and no redundant restating of schema details.

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 simple read-only retrieval with two fully documented UUID parameters, the description plus schema is largely sufficient. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the relationship to scf_list_webhooks, but the schema's parameter descriptions already provide that hint (endpoint_id obtain from scf_list_webhooks). Complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, but it does help by naming the endpoint concept and expected returned fields, which indirectly clarifies the purpose of endpoint_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries the load.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get'), identifies the specific resource ('one webhook endpoint's detail'), and names the concrete content returned: delivery stats, allowed evidence IDs, and rate-limit configuration. This differentiates it from sibling tools like scf_list_webhooks, scf_create_webhook, scf_delete_webhook, and scf_rotate_webhook_secret without needing to inspect schemas.

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 this is for retrieving a single webhook endpoint's detail, and the sibling names establish the context (list vs get vs create vs delete). It doesn't explicitly say 'use scf_list_webhooks first to get endpoint_id' in the description text, but the input schema does, which counts as surrounding context. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement but is otherwise clear.

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