manus_usage_team_statistic

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavior. It discloses access restrictions and filter format but omits details like rate limits, read-only nature, or error handling for invalid dates.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds constraints and optional filter. No wasted words, and key 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?

For a simple query with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and access rules. Minor gaps like default date range and timezone do not severely hinder usability.

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 0%, and the description adds that parameters are optional Unix seconds, providing basic type and format guidance. However, it lacks details on default values, timezone handling, or allowed ranges.

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 retrieves daily team credit consumption totals for team accounts, with an optional date filter. It distinguishes from sibling tools like manus_usage_list by specifying team scope.

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 states team accounts only and that members see only their own totals, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or compare with alternatives like manus_usage_team_log.

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