cpu_get_craft_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: stalling conditions, batch settlement rules, blocked output handling, isFinished implications, and timestamp reference to serverTime. No contradictions are present.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently provides all necessary behavioral details in a well-structured manner without redundant or filler sentences.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description comprehensively explains the output content (status, progress, claimable, timestamps) and key concepts (stalls, isFinished), making the tool fully understandable for an AI agent.

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 schema description adequately explains the tokenId parameter. The tool description adds minor context ('works for any tokenId') but does not significantly enhance the semantic meaning 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 uses specific verbs ('Get the craft job on a cell') and lists detailed attributes (recipe, status, progress, claimable, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like cpu_claim_craft by stating 'This is the source of craft progress; bank matured batches with 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?

It explicitly states the tool is public and works for any tokenId, and directs users to cpu_claim_craft for the claiming action. While it does not compare to other status tools (e.g., cpu_get_mining_status), the context is clear for its intended use.

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