manus_task_wait

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

With no annotations, the description discloses polling behavior, timeout, filtering via since_message_id, and return values. It does not mention rate limits or side effects, but for a read-like poll operation this is sufficient.

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 main action and followed by return information. No unnecessary 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?

The description covers purpose, terminal states, timeout, return values, and next steps. Missing details like error handling specifics are acceptable given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema.

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 50%, and the description does not detail the undocumented parameters (task_id, timeout_sec, poll_interval_sec) beyond implying their roles. It relies on the schema for those, but provides enough context for 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 uses specific verb 'Poll' and resource 'task', states terminal states and timeout behavior, and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like manus_task_detail or manus_task_stop.

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 explains when to use this tool (after starting a task) and references related tools (manus_task_confirm_action, manus_task_send_message) for next steps, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives.

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