get_craft_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that the tool is read-only (no side effects implied), public, and specifies exactly what data is returned, leaving no behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two succinct sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and outputs, followed by usage notes. Every phrase adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains all returned fields and specifies public access. For a simple 1-parameter tool, this provides complete context for agent usage.

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 single parameter tokenId is well-described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context by mentioning 'cell' and 'craft processes', but does not significantly enhance beyond the schema's description. Baseline 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 clearly states it gets craft processes on a cell and enumerates the returned fields (recipe, status, batches done, claimable, next batch maturity), distinguishing it from siblings like claim_craft.

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 states the tool is public and works for any tokenId, and directs the agent to use claim_craft for banking matured batches, 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.