cpu_craft

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

With no annotations, the description explains key behaviors: inputs debited upfront for all batches, immediate timer start for most recipes, but forge_wcpu triggers an on-chain payment with a one-time allowance and delayed timer start. Missing details on error handling or idempotency, but overall provides significant 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?

The description is a single paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, prerequisites, batch behavior, and special case, all without redundancy. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers prerequisites, workflow steps, special case, and references related tools. It could mention error conditions or return values, but it is fairly complete for its scope.

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% and the description adds extra meaning: batches are sequential, inputs debited upfront, and forge_wcpu involves cost and payment. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions while not repeating them, effectively enhancing understanding.

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 runs a craft recipe on a cell you own, specifying two uses: refine raw resources or forge $WCPU. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing prerequisites (cpu_authenticate) and related tools (cpu_list_recipes, cpu_get_craft_status, 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?

Explicitly states when to use: requires a session from cpu_authenticate, recipes discovered via cpu_list_recipes. Provides guidance on tracking progress and claiming via cpu_get_craft_status and cpu_claim_craft. Distinguishes the forge_wcpu recipe as having a different process and cost.

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