cpu_start_mining

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that starting is a commitment (run continues until deposit exhausted), target cannot be switched, building cannot be demolished mid-run, and costs no $CPU. This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 but well-constructed with focused sentences. Each sentence adds value, though a bulleted or more structured format could enhance readability slightly. Still efficient and clear.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values, but it comprehensively covers prerequisites, behavior, limitations, and references related tools (cpu_authenticate, cpu_build, cpu_claim_mining, cpu_get_mining_status). It is complete for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context: tokenId must be a cell you own with finished extractor; targetResourceId must be mineable and have active deposit, omit for single-resource extractors. This adds 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 clearly states the tool starts extraction on a cell with a finished extractor, specifying the resource requirement and prerequisites (session via cpu_authenticate, building finished after cpu_build). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cpu_claim_mining (banks batches but does not stop) and cpu_build (building takes time).

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 explicitly states when to use: after cpu_authenticate, after cpu_build (building must be finished), before cpu_claim_mining. It also specifies when to omit targetResourceId (single-resource extractor) and warns against expecting to switch targets mid-run. This provides clear context for the AI agent.

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