Craft info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it explicitly labels the call read-only and lists every returned field plus the salt preimage rule. It does not address error cases or formatting, but for a zero-argument getter that disclosure is substantial.

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 packed with useful specifics and is front-loaded with the operation and target, but the single long sentence with nested slash-separated fields is harder to scan than a short bulleted list. No words are wasted.

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?

For a parameterless read-only view, the description is complete: it names the state fields, the per-tier bounds, the window constants, and the salt-policy formula. There is no output schema, but the description itself supplies most of what an agent would need to interpret the result.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter details and no compensation is needed; per the baseline for 0-param tools this is fully adequate.

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 names a specific operation ('Read-only view') and the target resource (CraftingController v1), then enumerates the exact fields and constants returned. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling verification/price helpers even without explicit comparisons.

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 establishes a clear read-only inspection context, but it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings like verify_craft_commit or price_info, nor does it give any when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer usage from the field list and tool name.

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