manus_usage_team_log

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

Discloses row-scoping per user and enterprise latency, but lacks information on side effects or safety profile. Without annotations, more behavioral detail (e.g., read-only nature) would improve score.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence covering purpose, scope, and latency nuance. No fluff.

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?

With 6 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description lacks critical details like default sorting, pagination behavior, and return format. Insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke.

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?

No parameter descriptions in schema (0% coverage) and description adds no parameter details beyond field names. Agents must infer semantics from parameter names alone.

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?

Clearly states it returns per-user team statistics with task counts and credit totals, distinguishes from siblings like manus_usage_list and manus_usage_team_statistic by specifying team scope and per-user breakdown.

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?

Explicitly notes team-only access and that members see only their own row, plus enterprise latency. Provides clear context for when to use, though does not mention alternatives.

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