rp_create_custom_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose two useful traits: no Vivado session is needed and the call returns an rtl/ dir plus a red_pitaya_top path. It is silent on what happens if a project named <name> already exists (overwrite? error?), whether the clone is shallow or copies generated artifacts, and on failure modes.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and path transformation, followed by the return value and the session requirement. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 3-parameter clone tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers what the tool produces (rtl/ dir, top path) and a key operational constraint (no Vivado session). The remaining gap is collision/overwrite behavior on an existing target, which is the main thing an agent could still get wrong.

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 description adds meaning by mapping base_project and name onto the prj/<base> → prj/<name> path structure, which the schema only partially conveys. workspace_path has no schema description at all and the description only says 'inside the workspace', leaving the gap unresolved. At 67% coverage, this is a baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (clone) and resource (an existing prj/<base> into prj/<name>) plus the domain purpose ('ready for custom PL logic'). This distinguishes it from generic siblings like create_project or create_redpitaya_project_rtl, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Clone an existing prj/<base>' implies usage for deriving a custom-PL project from a known base, and 'No Vivado session required' hints at a lightweight context. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no pointer to rp_list_projects for discovering valid base names or to create_redpitaya_project_rtl as the alternative.

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