manus_task_wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses polling behavior, timeout, return contents, and the meaning of 'waiting' state. It does not mention any destructive or authorization requirements, which is acceptable for a read-only polling tool.

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 long, front-loads the purpose and outcome, and includes essential cross-references. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 explains the return values thoroughly and how to proceed based on status. Without an output schema, it effectively covers the main flow. Minor gap: could mention that polling is blocking.

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 add extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like include_verbose and since_message_id. The description implies usage of timeout and poll_interval but does not detail them. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verbs ('Poll' and 'Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('task'). It distinguishes from siblings by naming the terminal states and referencing manus_task_confirm_action and manus_task_send_message for subsequent actions.

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 states when to use the tool (poll until terminal state or timeout) and provides context for next steps after waiting. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like manus_task_detail for non-blocking checks.

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