Both Mike James, and BMathews have given some excellent comments regarding “maneuverability”. In a generic sense, since a maneuver is basically an acceleration, simply keeping the mass low, and the force high will maximize it. In other words light wing loading and plenty of power and control. However from the standpoint of designing an aircraft, not all maneuvers are created equal. There is no one configuration that is best for all maneuvers. That is the reason that a pattern plane doesn’t look like a 3D model which doesn’t look like a pylon racer, etc.

Features that enhance one maneuver may well be detrimental in performance of another. For example, if snap maneuvers are the priority, an airfoil with abrupt stall characteristics may be the best, whereas if tight turning radius without the danger of sudden unexpected stall is more important, one that reacts more gently might be best. Tight turns will usually dictate use of a somewhat cambered airfoil, but if inverted flight were the priority, a symmetrical section would be the choice. For knife-edge flight, roll coupling should be a minimum, but again for snap maneuvers, it may speed up the roll rate. As for vectored thrust, that is exactly what a 3D airplane uses when hovering. The tail surfaces deflect the propwash to control the machine.

To design an aircraft, the first step is to determine the desired flight profile and define what maneuvers are priority. Only then are you prepared to begin determining the features to produce the results you want. A simple generic approach will usually result in a simply generic model.