cpu_craft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: inputs are debited upfront for all batches, most recipes start timer immediately, forge_wcpu requires on-chain payment and one-time allowance, and the run stops itself with no cancel. This is thorough for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is slightly long but efficient for the complexity of the tool.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally mention what it returns (e.g., a craft ID or status). It only hints at follow-up tools. Error conditions or limitations beyond 'no cancel' are omitted. For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, some gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining behavioral context for parameters (e.g., 'batches' debited upfront and no cancel, 'recipeId' with special forge_wcpu cost). This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 main action: 'Run a craft recipe on a cell you own (refine raw resources, or forge $WCPU).' It uses specific verbs and resources and distinguishes from sibling tools like cpu_list_recipes, cpu_get_craft_status, and cpu_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?

The description provides clear guidance: prerequisites ('call cpu_authenticate first'), discovery information ('discover recipes with cpu_list_recipes'), and follow-up tools ('cpu_get_craft_status' and 'cpu_claim_craft'). It also explains special cases like forge_wcpu costing $CPU. However, it does not explicitly state 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.