get_ip_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool lists (upgrade-needed, locked, up-to-date IPs) and explains the IS_LOCKED attribute, giving useful technical context. It also mentions upgrade suggestions as part of the output. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the wording implies inspection and not mutation.

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 concise and well-structured, with the main purpose front-loaded and bullet points listing the tool's outputs. The background about Vivado prompts earns its place as useful context. No unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool's simplicity (single optional parameter, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides ample context: what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and parameter meaning. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 schema has no description coverage for the single parameter, but the description includes 'Args: session_id: 目标会话 ID。' which clearly explains the parameter's purpose. This fully compensates for the lack of schema description, adding meaning beyond the schema's minimal type/default.

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 checks the version status of all IPs in the project, listing those that need upgrade, are locked, or are up to date. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like compare_xci and inspect_ip_params, which focus on other aspects of IP/project inspection.

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?

It provides clear usage context: when opening an old project and Vivado prompts that IPs need upgrade. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the context makes it evident when to use this tool over others, satisfying the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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