cpu_reveal

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses on-chain transaction, ETH fee requirement, free first reveal vs re-reveal conditions, asynchronous deposit behavior. Lacks details on failure modes or exact consequences of conditions not met.

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?

Description is brief and well-structured, with main purpose first, then prerequisites, then fee and async details. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

Covers essential workflow: authenticate, reveal (with ETH fee), async deposit, and reading with cpu_get_cell. Missing details on tool's return value and edge cases like insufficient ETH or re-reveal conditions, but still adequate for a simple tool.

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 has 100% coverage with clear parameter description. Overall description does not add new information about the parameter beyond what schema already provides, so 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?

Description clearly states it reveals deposits of a cell you own. The verb 'reveal' and resource 'deposits of a cell' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like cpu_get_cell (which reads after reveal) and cpu_authenticate (prerequisite).

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?

Provides clear context: must call cpu_authenticate first, mentions asynchronous deposits and alternative tool cpu_get_cell for reading results. However, does not explicitly state when to use or avoid using this tool relative to alternatives.

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