scf_list_webhooks

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the ordering and the exact return fields, including the secret prefix, which is non-obvious and valuable for an agent.

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 sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and each clause adds meaningful information: scope, ordering, and return fields.

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 simple read-only listing tool with one fully documented parameter and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the essential details: scope, ordering, and return fields. No output schema exists, so the explicit return-field list is especially helpful.

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 schema fully describes org_id, including its UUID format and how to obtain it from scf_list_organizations. The description only reinforces the organizational scope without adding new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 exact operation (List), the resource (the organization's webhook endpoints), the ordering (newest first), and the returned fields. This clearly differentiates it from related tools like scf_get_webhook, scf_create_webhook, and scf_list_webhook_deliveries.

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?

It implies use when an agent needs all webhook endpoints for an organization rather than a single webhook via scf_get_webhook. The context is clear, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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