cpu_claim_mining

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

Discloses critical behaviors beyond annotations (none provided): claiming with nothing matured is a harmless no-op, cycle in progress matures nothing, error on no extractor. This compensates for missing annotations.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with primary action, no redundant words. Every sentence adds essential information.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers prerequisites, preconditions, error states, and recommended companion tool (cpu_get_mining_status).

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 covers tokenId fully (100% coverage), but description adds context like 'cell you own with an extractor', reinforcing meaning beyond 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 action ('Bank every matured mining batch') and the resource ('into its resource balance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cpu_start_mining and cpu_get_mining_status.

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 mentions prerequisite ('Requires a session — call cpu_authenticate first'), harmless cases ('no-op' when nothing matured), error conditions ('cell that has no extractor is an error'), and recommends checking availability with cpu_get_mining_status.

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