hardware_list_signalsList semiconductor supply chain, performance and operational signals across the panel, with filters. Panel-wide, not per robot: requires an access right on at least one robot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layer | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| region | No | ||
| block_id | No | ||
| active_only | No | ||
| signal_type | No | ||
| min_severity | No | ||
| component_type | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about panel-wide scope and the access-right requirement, but it does not describe pagination, filtering behavior, or response shape. With strong annotations, this is adequate but not rich.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately followed by the critical scope and authorization caveat. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.
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?
With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description must carry significant contextual weight. It establishes scope and access requirements but leaves the filter parameters and expected response format almost entirely unexplained, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with meaningful filters.
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% across 9 parameters, and the description only generically says 'with filters.' It adds no meaning about layer, region, signal_type, min_severity, component_type, or other parameters. The burden falls entirely on the description, which fails to explain any parameter.
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 and resource: 'List semiconductor supply chain, performance and operational signals across the panel, with filters.' It explicitly differentiates from per-robot signal tools by saying 'Panel-wide, not per robot,' which clearly distinguishes it from hardware_get_robot_signals and similar 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?
The description clearly frames the tool as panel-wide and not per-robot, implying that per-robot signal retrieval should use a different tool. It also notes the access-right prerequisite. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to make an informed choice.
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.