manus_task_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying no destructive behavior. It mentions an IM shortcut but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or error handling. The description is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the core action, no redundant language. Efficient and to the point.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema) and the description hints at differentiation from a sibling. However, it omits what 'metadata' includes, does not describe the return format, and lacks error context. It is minimally viable but could be more helpful.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning for task_id beyond its existence. The description does not explain the format, source, or constraints of the task_id. With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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's function: 'Get a task's status and metadata.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from manus_task_list_messages, which handles conversation history. This provides specific verb+resource scope and differentiates from a sibling tool.

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 gives direct guidance: 'Use manus_task_list_messages for the full conversation history,' indicating this tool is for status/metadata only. It also mentions an IM shortcut. However, it doesn't address other potential alternatives like manus_task_list or when not to use.

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