cpu_claim_mining

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses edge cases (no-op, error), cycle semantics (only whole cycles settle, wait resets if output doesn't fit), side effects (does not stop running job, retires completed jobs and frees process slot). This is exemplary behavioral transparency.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then prerequisites, then edge cases. Every sentence provides non-redundant, necessary detail. Despite being longer than typical descriptions, it is dense with useful information and avoids fluff.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description thoroughly covers prerequisites, side effects, and edge cases. It could explicitly mention the return value (e.g., new balance) to be fully complete, but the behavioral detail and pointer to cpu_get_mining_status make it nearly comprehensive.

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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter (tokenId) with a description that already includes 'a cell you own with an extractor'. The tool description adds no additional param semantics beyond restating the schema, so the baseline score of 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 a specific verb ('bank') and resource ('matured mining cycle an extractor has produced on a cell you own'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like cpu_get_mining_status (checking status) and cpu_start_mining (starting mining). It unambiguously states the action and its target.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires a session — call cpu_authenticate first') and advises checking availability with cpu_get_mining_status. It also differentiates valid claim scenarios (harmless no-op when nothing new, error on cells without an extractor), providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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