workspace_reportGenerate a product-level report by inspecting multiple repository paths together; choose markdown to get a compact human-readable summary.
Generate a product-level report across multiple related repositories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paths | Yes | Repository paths to inspect together. | |
| includeMarkdown | No | Return a compact human-readable markdown report instead of the full JSON. Defaults to false. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond saying it 'generates' a report. It does not describe output format, aggregation behavior, scope limitations, or any side effects, so it relies entirely on the annotation for safety transparency.
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, well-structured sentence with no filler. The core action, scope, and subject are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
The tool is simple and read-only, and the schema covers parameters well, but the description does not clarify what a 'product-level report' contains or how the repositories relate. Since there is no output schema, a little more detail about the report's scope or contents would make it fully complete.
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%, and both parameters (paths, includeMarkdown) are adequately described in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('product-level report') and adds the scoping phrase 'across multiple related repositories,' which distinguishes it from single-repo sibling tools like repo_inspect or repo_map. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling, so differentiation is slightly implied rather than stated.
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 phrase 'product-level report across multiple related repositories' clearly implies a multi-repo aggregation context, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. With 12 sibling tools, explicit selection guidance would meaningfully improve the definition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.