rp_workspace_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load. It does disclose the shape of the returned information (projects present + bitstream-built flag), which is valuable since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about failure behavior for a bad/missing workspace_path, whether it errors or returns empty, or whether it touches disk state.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the payload contents. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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 simple, single-parameter read tool this is borderline adequate: the description explains what the report contains, which compensates for the absence of an output schema. However, the one parameter is entirely unexplained and ambiguity around how the 'built bitstream' state is determined is left open.

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% and the single required parameter workspace_path is undocumented both in the schema and the description. The description never mentions the path argument, so the agent gets no help on format (absolute path? workspace root? Red Pitaya project dir?) beyond the property name.

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?

Specific verb ('Report') plus a concrete resource ('workspace state'), and it spells out the reported content: which projects exist and which already have a built bitstream. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the nearby rp_list_projects / get_project_info siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent can only infer from the word 'Report' that this is a read-only inspection step, and cannot tell whether to prefer rp_list_projects or this tool.

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