hardware_get_system_statusHealth of the SEMICONDUCTOR layer: profiles loaded, semiconductor signal counts, load errors. One status tool per layer - the three report different layers, not the same server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety-related traits: read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what the status contains: profiles loaded, semiconductor signal counts, and load errors. There is no contradiction with the annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second sentence resolves the most likely cross-layer confusion. Every word 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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool, this description is largely complete: it defines the layer, the area of health, and the relevant details it reports. The only minor gap is that no output schema exists, so the exact return shape is not described, but the tool summary is likely sufficient for invocation.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description still adds semantic value by clarifying that the tool is scoped to the semiconductor layer and what aspect of that layer it reports.
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 clearly states that the tool reports the health of the SEMICONDUCTOR layer, including profiles loaded, semiconductor signal counts, and load errors. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting that there is one status tool per layer and that the three report different layers rather than the same server.
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 gives clear contextual guidance: this tool is the system-status tool for the semiconductor layer, not for other layers. It also prevents the obvious confusion that hardware/mechanical/software status tools might all report the same server. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over more granular hardware tools like hardware_get_robot_hardware.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The layer prefixes and action verbs make most tools clearly distinct, but the three list_robots variants return the same catalogue and the three get_robot variants share identical commercial fields, creating real selection ambiguity. The descriptive warnings like 'call one, not three' help but do not fully resolve the overlap.
All 27 tools follow a uniform <layer>_<action>_<object> snake_case pattern with consistent verbs: get, list, compare. There are no mixed naming conventions or stylistic deviations.
27 tools is above the comfortable range and is inflated by triplication: list_robots, get_robot, compare_robots, list_signals, and system_status are repeated across layers with only minor differences. A layer parameter could consolidate a large portion of the surface without losing functionality.
As a read-only intelligence platform, the set covers catalogue listing, comparison, robot profiles, BOM details, block analysis, dependency analysis, signals, and system health across hardware, mechanical, and software layers. The main gap is the lack of a consolidated multi-layer robot view, though agents can compose one from the three get_robot variants.