manus_webhook_events_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the prerequisite (receiver running) but doesn't clarify if the operation is read-only, pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, or rate limits. The description is acceptable but lacks depth for a list operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by filter details and a prerequisite. No unnecessary words, efficient and clear.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the response structure but does not. It also fails to mention default ordering (desc) and pagination behavior. The tool has 5 parameters, and the description only covers two, leaving gaps in understanding for a list 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?

Schema description coverage is low (20%), but the description adds meaning for event_type and task_id, specifying allowed values for event_type. However, it omits the 'since_received_at', 'limit', and 'order' parameters, which are only documented in the schema. The description partially compensates but not fully.

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 lists webhook events from a local receiver, with specific filter options (event_type, task_id). It distinguishes from sibling tools like manus_webhook_events_get and manus_webhook_events_clear.

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 explicitly requires the webhook receiver to be running, providing a reference (manus-mcp-webhook). It also mentions filterable fields, which guides when to use parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare with alternatives.

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