manus_webhook_events_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a dependency on the webhook receiver running. However, it lacks details on pagination behavior, error handling, or what happens if the receiver is not running. For a list tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences, no unnecessary words. The first sentence states purpose and filters; the second gives a prerequisite. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, optional filters, and a prerequisite. No output schema exists, so return format is omitted, which is acceptable for a list tool. However, it could mention pagination or result count.

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 only 20% (only since_received_at has a description). The description compensates by explicitly listing event_type with allowed values 'task_created' / 'task_stopped' and mentioning task_id filtering. For limit and order, no additional info is provided, but the filtering parameters are well explained.

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, specifies filtering by event_type and task_id, and distinguishes it from siblings like manus_webhook_events_get and manus_webhook_events_clear. The verb 'List' and resource 'webhook events' are explicit.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires the webhook receiver to be running') and directs to a related tool (manus-mcp-webhook). It implies when to use (listing events) but does not explicitly exclude other cases or compare with siblings.

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