cpu_claim_mining

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and delivers extensively: it discloses no-op behavior, the no-extractor error case, partial-cycle settlement ('only whole cycles settle — if a full cycle of output does not fit, nothing banks and the wait resets'), the fact that claiming does not stop a running job, and retirement freeing the process slot. This is far beyond what the schema conveys.

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?

Six dense sentences, each earning its place by disclosing a distinct behavioral rule or prerequisite. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by edge cases in logical order. Slightly long but justified given the absence of annotations and output schema; better structuring of prerequisites vs. edge cases would push it to 5.

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 high behavioral complexity and no annotations or output schema, the description covers nearly everything an agent needs: authentication prerequisite, status pre-check, error conditions, partial-settlement semantics, side effects, and retirement behavior. The only gap is return-value semantics — how the agent learns how much was banked or that the no-op occurred.

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 description coverage is 100%: tokenId is documented as 'a cell you own with an extractor, to bank its matured mining cycles.' The description reinforces the ownership and extractor conditions but adds little semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource statement: 'Bank every matured mining cycle an extractor has produced on a cell you own into its resource balance.' This clearly distinguishes cpu_claim_mining from siblings like cpu_start_mining (initiating work) and cpu_get_mining_status (checking state), so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 gives explicit prerequisites ('Requires a session — call cpu_authenticate first') and a pre-check flow ('Check what is available first with cpu_get_mining_status'), plus expected outcomes (no-op, error). It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement naming an alternative tool for a different scenario, so it misses a 5.

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