get_webhook_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It doesn't explicitly state whether this is read-only or if it triggers any side effects, but given the tool is simple and returns a URL, the description's clarity contributes to behavioral transparency. It also mentions 'existing webhook' implying validation might occur, which is helpful.

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?

The description is a short but complete paragraph, with the main sentence (returns URL) followed by a bolded 'Use when' line and a contrast with create_webhook. It's front-loaded and wastes no words.

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?

There is an output schema (not shown but indicated as true), which likely describes the URL structure. The tool is simple, and the description covers the usage context well, referencing the alternative create_webhook for new inboxes. Could be a 5 but the 'validate' parameter unclear and no mention of error cases, though that might be outside scope.

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 coverage is 50%: webhook_token has a description ('Webhook UUID returned by create_webhook'), while validate has no description. The description reinforces the purpose of webhook_token but doesn't explain 'validate'. The parameter meanings are mostly clear from the schema, and the description adds value by tying webhook_token to existing webhooks. However, the 'validate' parameter's semantics are ambiguous, so not a 5.

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 tool returns the HTTPS callback URL for an existing webhook given a token. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying that it's for existing webhooks and that create_webhook already returns the URL for new inboxes.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: when the user already has a token and needs the HTTP callback URL. It also provides a when-not-to-use by referencing create_webhook for new inboxes, though it doesn't name the exact alternative tool (it does: create_webhook).

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