rp_list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious traits: it works without a Vivado session, it only looks under prj/, and it defines exactly what makes a project Z10-capable (ip/system.tcl or legacy ip/systemZ10.tcl). It doesn't say whether it fails or returns empty on a missing prj/ directory, so read-only semantics are implied by 'List' rather than stated.

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, action first, then the flag semantics, then the environment constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the important outputs (project list plus Z10 flag) and the environment precondition. Minor gap: no mention of what happens when no prj/ directory exists or of ordering/nesting of results.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains that path is 'the dir that contains prj/'. The description's 'workspace or repo' phrasing slightly widens the acceptable input but adds no format or validation detail 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List projects under prj/ of a RedPitaya workspace or repo') plus a concrete secondary behavior (flagging Z10-capable projects with the exact file criteria). It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it might be confused with (e.g. rp_workspace_info, rp_build_project), but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'No Vivado session required' hints that this is a pre-session discovery step, and the prj/ scoping suggests use before building a specific project. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement or pointer to alternatives such as rp_workspace_info.

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