get_mining_status

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a read-only operation, public, and lists the exact data returned. It does not mention rate limits or potential side effects, but for a read tool this is sufficient. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value. The most important info is first. No fluff 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description fully covers what an agent needs: purpose, when to use, parameters, and related tools.

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% (single parameter with description). The description adds minimal extra meaning: 'The tokenId of the cell to inspect mining for.' This slightly reinforces the schema, aligning with baseline 3.

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 clearly states purpose: 'Read a cell's mining status' and lists specific fields (extractor active, resource, accrued amount, remaining deposit). It distinguishes from sibling tools like `claim_mining` by noting the owner banks with that tool.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Public — works for any cell, no session required.' Also provides alternative: 'The owner banks the accrued amount with `claim_mining`.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool.

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