cpu_get_cell

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it explains what is returned, defines distanceFromMine with null conditions, explains the storage box fields, and details the stalled flag's exact trigger and consequence. It could go slightly further by explicitly stating there are no side effects, but 'Inspect' plus the detailed semantics make the behavior clear.

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 dense but purposeful: it front-loads the core action, then explains return shape and nuanced behavior, and ends with a routing pointer. Every major clause adds value, even if the stalled-flag explanation is fairly long.

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 read-only inspection tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is unusually complete: it covers return contents, neighbor expansion, distance semantics with edge cases, resource storage fields, and process stall behavior. An agent has enough context to call this tool and interpret its response 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?

The single parameter tokenId is already fully described in the schema ('The cell tokenId to inspect.'), giving 100% coverage. The description reinforces that the cell is the target and that ownership does not matter, but it does not need to add parameter syntax or format details 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect one cell in depth' and clarifies the scope ('any owner — the map is public'). It also distinguishes itself from a sibling by pointing to cpu_get_map for broader awareness, making the tool's niche clear.

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 this tool ('Inspect one cell in depth') and names an alternative for broader context ('For broader situational awareness use cpu_get_map'). It does not enumerate exclusions against every sibling, but the scoping cue is sufficient for the main decision.

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