cpu_reveal

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses on-chain transaction, ETH fee requirements, free first reveal vs. costly re-reveal, dependency on network randomness mode, settlement behavior on self-service networks, and the fee-free nature of calling again on a pending reveal. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 but every sentence provides necessary operational detail—prerequisite, fees, re-reveal conditions, network dependency, and settlement behavior. It is efficiently structured, front-loaded with purpose, and wastes no words.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains key outcomes (returns deposits rolled on self-service networks, pending reveals) and important caveats (randomness mode, fee structure). It lacks a full return format specification, but given the simple single-parameter input and rich behavioral context, it is nearly complete.

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% and the single parameter tokenId is already described as 'The tokenId of a cell you own to reveal.' The description merely reiterates 'a cell you own' without adding new parameter semantics, such as edge cases or format details, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Reveal the deposits of a cell you own.' It explicitly scopes to owned cells and distinguishes from related actions like re-reveal and pending reveals, making the tool's purpose unambiguous even with sibling tools like cpu_fulfill_reveal present.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites ('call cpu_authenticate first'), resource requirements (ETH for fees), and situational guidance (when re-reveal applies, self-service network behavior). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear and actionable.

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