vivado_project_summary

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Return structured information'), but does not mention side effects, permissions, or dependencies like needing an open project. The timeout parameter hints at potential duration, but no explicit behavior is described.

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 sentence, which is concise but vague. It lists components but lacks detail. It could be more informative without becoming verbose, such as mentioning the output format or required project state.

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 existence of an output schema, explanation of return values is not needed. However, the description misses key context: it does not state that the tool requires an active session or project, nor does it explain what 'structured information' entails. This inadequacy for a tool with 2 parameters and no annotation coverage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain the parameters: session_ref (required, likely a session identifier) and timeout_seconds (default 60). No additional meaning is added beyond the schema, leaving their purpose unclear.

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 returns structured information about the Vivado project, listing specific aspects (files, runs, IP, block designs). It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like vivado_report or vivado_list_artifacts, limiting distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vivado_report or vivado_list_artifacts. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an active session) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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