manus_skill_list

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 states that listing skills is the purpose and that project_id affects scope, but does not mention that the operation is read-only or any other behavioral traits. For a simple listing, the transparency is adequate but could be improved.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second adds parameter usage. Every word is useful, and the information is front-loaded.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose and parameter effect. It is mostly complete for a list tool, though it could mention the return format or that it is a read operation.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters, but the description explains that project_id is optional and, if provided, includes project-specific skills in addition to global user skills. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's mere declaration of a nullable string.

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 the resource 'available skills', and it distinguishes the tool by mentioning the optional project_id to include project-specific skills. Among siblings like manus_agent_list and manus_connector_list, this tool's purpose is unique.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool (to list skills) and explains the effect of the project_id parameter. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context of sibling tools implies other list tools are for different resources.

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