cpu_claim_mining

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behaviors: requires session, harmless no-op when nothing new, error on no extractor, cycle maturation rules, no interference with running jobs, and retirement of completed jobs. This exceeds expectations.

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 relatively concise given the complexity, and each sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the main action. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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?

The description covers all key behaviors and refers to a relevant sibling tool. The only minor gap is no mention of return value, but its absence is acceptable given the action's side-effect nature.

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 description covers the parameter's purpose, and the tool description adds behavioral context (e.g., error conditions). With 100% schema coverage, the description enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 purpose: banking matured mining cycles into a cell's resource balance. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning cpu_get_mining_status for checking available cycles.

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 prerequisites (session from cpu_authenticate), when it's a no-op vs error, and suggests checking with cpu_get_mining_status first. This provides clear usage guidance.

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