cpu_get_cell

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully explains behavior: returns cell, neighbours as full states, distanceFromMine with BFS steps and null conditions, and details about storage and stalled flag for resources. It is comprehensive.

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?

A single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence provides necessary detail without redundancy, earning its place.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return structure (cell, neighbours, distance, storage, stalled). It also references a sibling tool for broader needs, making it complete for its intended use.

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?

The single parameter 'tokenId' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds only that 'any owner — the map is public', which is contextual but not a semantic parameter clarification. Beyond the schema, minimal value is added.

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 'Inspect one cell in depth' – a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'cpu_get_map' by recommending that tool for broader awareness, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 context: any cell can be inspected ('any owner — the map is public'), explains when distanceFromMine is null, and directs to a sibling tool for broader views. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with other siblings like cpu_get_lot.

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