cpu_get_craft_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so richly: explains stalling condition (output box has room for less than one whole batch), settlement behavior (batches settle whole or not at all), reset behavior, meaning of isFinished, process slot hold, and timestamp convention. This exceeds typical status-read 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 dense yet well-organized, front-loading the core output then progressing to stall behavior, isFinished semantics, timestamp note, and final guidance. Every sentence contributes unique information; no filler or 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?

No output schema exists, so description must explain return values; it does so by naming fields (completedBatches, batches, blockedResourceIds, isFinished, serverTime) and their semantics. Given the complexity of craft state, the description covers causes, effects, actions, and timing comprehensively.

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 already covers tokenId with a clear description (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. Description adds meaningful context by confirming the operation works for any tokenId ('Public'), removing ambiguity about ownership restrictions, and tying tokenId to the cell context. This slight elevation above baseline is justified.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'craft job on a cell' and enumerates the returned details (recipe, status, progress, claimable amounts, timings). It distinguishes itself from sibling status tools like cpu_get_mining_status and cpu_get_transport_status by focusing on craft state.

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?

States when to use: 'This is the source of craft progress' and explicitly directs to the next action: 'bank matured batches with cpu_claim_craft'. Also notes 'Public — works for any tokenId', clarifying access constraints. Provides clear context for interpretation of stalled states and recovery actions.

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