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

Beyond the annotations that already mark this tool as read-only and idempotent, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it requires an access right on the named robot, or on at least one robot when robot_id is omitted. This is useful disclosure about authorization behavior.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The authorization requirement in the second sentence is essential and earns its place.

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 simple parameter schema and the presence of read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains the object/scope, the authorization constraint, and why this is different from sibling layer tools. It falls short only in detail theory expectations or return-value format.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partly does: 'one functional block' clarifies block_id, and 'on the robot named, or on at least one robot when none is' explains the robot_id default behavior. However, the description does not explain the accepted formats, constraints, or how robot_id is used if omitted.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyse') and identifies the resource ('one functional block of the semiconductor layer') plus the scope ('for a single robot at a time'). It clearly distinguishes itself from mechanical_get_block_analysis and software_get_block_analysis by naming the semiconductor layer.

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?

The description provides clear context: the tool targets semiconductor-layer functional blocks and handles a single robot per call. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the layer and scope make the intended use fairly clear.

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