manus_task_detail

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

The description indicates it returns status and metadata, implying a read operation, but does not detail the exact output format or metadata fields. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden, but it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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?

Three short sentences—each serves a clear purpose: stating function, directing to an alternative, and providing a shortcut. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description could better explain the return value (e.g., what metadata is included). It covers the basic action and one alternative, but lacks details on parameter format and output structure.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by adding meaning to the task_id parameter. It only mentions an IM shortcut, which is not about the parameter itself. The parameter remains largely undefined in terms of format or usage.

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 gets a task's status and metadata, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling manus_task_list_messages by directing the user to that tool for full conversation history.

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 a clear alternative for a related use case (conversation history via manus_task_list_messages) and mentions the IM shortcut 'agent-default-main_task'. However, it does not explicitly exclude other cases or provide comprehensive when-to-use guidance.

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