cpu_claim_craft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses authentication requirement, mutation behavior (banking), error conditions (no craft processes), and slot freeing on full claim. This is comprehensive behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy. Highly efficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, error states, and complementary tools. It could mention return values, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the moderate complexity.

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% with a single parameter (tokenId) described in schema. The tool description adds ownership context and clarifies that the cell must own craft processes, adding value beyond the schema description.

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 the tool's action: 'Bank every matured craft batch on a cell you own into its resource balance.' It distinguishes from siblings like cpu_craft and cpu_get_craft_status by specifying it is for claiming matured batches, not creating or checking.

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 usage conditions: requires a session via cpu_authenticate, describes no-op success vs error cases, and recommends checking claimable status with cpu_get_craft_status. This guides appropriate selection and invocation.

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