cpu_get_cell

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

The description goes into depth about behavior: returns the cell, neighbours expanded as full cell states, distanceFromMine with BFS steps and null conditions, plus storage box contents and the stalled flag's precise trigger and effect on production. With no annotations present, this detailed disclosure fully carries the transparency burden.

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 uses four sentences, each with a distinct job: purpose, return structure, field semantics, and a pointer to a sibling tool. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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?

In the absence of an output schema, the description details the major return components and edge cases: neighbour expansion, distanceFromMine with null and 50-step limits, storage box fields, and the stalled flag behavior. This is comprehensive and actionable for a complex inspection tool.

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 100% — the only parameter tokenId is fully described with type, range, and purpose. The description adds contextual info ('any owner — the map is public') but no additional parameter syntax or format details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect one cell in depth,' clearly stating the tool's action and target. It differentiates from siblings by explicitly pointing to cpu_get_map for broader awareness, making its narrow, deep-dive scope unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly names an alternative tool: 'For broader situational awareness use cpu_get_map,' giving the agent a clear when-to-use versus when-to-use-something-else decision. It also notes that any owner's cell can be inspected since the map is public, setting expectations for access.

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