cleanuparr_list_manual_events

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds that the operation is a paginated list with optional filters. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as default page size, date range semantics, or how filters interact. Since annotations already cover safety, this is acceptable but not enriched beyond the obvious.

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 single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It states the core action and key features efficiently, earning a top score for conciseness.

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?

The tool has 7 optional parameters, a read-only annotation, and an output schema. The description is minimally viable: it communicates the high-level purpose and mentions pagination/filters but leaves out details like what constitutes a 'manual event' or how filters combine. Given the output schema and read-only safety, this meets the baseline but no more.

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 input schema has zero description coverage across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'with pagination and optional filters' only hints at the existence of page/page_size and filter parameters but does not explain any specific parameter's meaning, format, or allowed values. This provides marginal value over the raw 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('manual events'), and mentions pagination and optional filters. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cleanuparr_list_events (which lists all events) and cleanuparr_get_event (which fetches a single event). However, it does not explicitly contrast with these siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cleanuparr_list_events or cleanuparr_get_manual_event. It implies usage for listing manual events but does not state any context, exclusions, or relative advantages, leaving the agent to infer selection based solely on the name.

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