cpu_get_craft_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It reveals the tool is public, explains stall behavior (blockedResourceIds), and clarifies it is read-only (mentioning claim separately). This is comprehensive for a read-only status endpoint.

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?

Three sentences: first sentence states purpose and output contents, second explains stall condition, third reiterates public access and links to claim tool. No fluff, well 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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the output fields, stall behavior, and relationship to sibling tool. It is complete for this complexity level.

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 has 100% schema coverage with description already descriptive. The tool description adds 'works for any tokenId' but no new semantic detail beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Get the craft processes on a cell' and enumerates the specific data fields (recipe, status, batches, claimable, maturation time, blocked outputs). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by directing to 'cpu_claim_craft' for claiming.

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 states 'This is the source of craft progress; bank matured batches with cpu_claim_craft.' This implies when to use this read tool. It also explains stall condition and public access. It does not explicitly list exclusions for alternative tools, but the context is strong.

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