manus_task_list

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions cursor pagination (implied incremental fetch) and conditional parameters, but does not specify read-only nature, rate limits, or return format. Some behavioral context is given, but more would help.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It avoids fluff, though it could benefit from a brief explanation of limit/order without becoming verbose.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema description, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. Missing details on pagination mechanics, response structure, and parameter interactions leave the agent underinformed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains scope, agent_id, project_id, and cursor relation, but does not clarify limit, order, or the meaning of cursor beyond pagination. Key parameters are left unexplained.

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 'List tasks' and indicates cursor pagination, giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes scope types but does not differentiate from sibling tools like manus_task_detail or manus_task_create, which are clearly different operations.

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?

Provides explicit conditional requirements: 'scope='agent_subtask' requires agent_id; scope='project' requires project_id.' This guides when certain parameters are needed. However, no when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned.

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