rp_setup_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that the copy is patched (Vivado BD version check, git removal), that the operation is idempotent, and that force=true deletes and recopies. It omits what the call returns and what the workspace footprint looks like, which leaves a gap for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then the patching behavior, then idempotency/force and the session prerequisite. No sentence is filler.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool the description covers prerequisites (no Vivado session), side effects of the patch, and re-run semantics. The main omission is return values (workspace path/handle), which the agent must infer since no output schema exists.

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 each parameter already has a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates force=true as the recopy trigger rather than adding format or edge-case guidance (e.g., force on a non-existent workspace).

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb (copy) plus the exact resource (a RedPitaya-FPGA repo) and the isolation goal. It implies why it differs from rp_fetch_repo (fetch origin vs. isolate a working copy) but never names the sibling, so an agent has to infer the boundary.

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?

'So builds don't touch the pristine checkout' states the situation that calls for this tool, and 'No Vivado session required' tells the agent it can run before start_session. It stops short of naming an alternative or a when-not condition (e.g., when to re-run rp_fetch_repo instead).

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