software_get_dependency_profileJurisdiction and supply chain dependency analysis for one robot, built on its software stack: jurisdiction concentration, lock-in, export control, cloud dependency. Requires an access right on the robot requested.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| robot_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a valuable operational requirement: 'Requires an access right on the robot requested.' This surfaces a prerequisite that could affect invocation, going beyond what annotations state. No contradictions with 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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It details the specific analyses performed and the access requirement without any fluff or redundant information. Every sentence adds value.
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 tool has no output schema, the description lists the analysis dimensions (jurisdiction concentration, lock-in, export control, cloud dependency), giving a clear idea of what the result might contain. It does not describe the output format or error conditions, but for a single-input get operation, the provided context is reasonably complete.
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 only parameter is 'robot_id' which is self-explanatory from its name and schema, but the description does not elaborate on it. The phrase 'for one robot' implies the parameter identifies the target, but no additional meaning or constraints are provided. Schema coverage is 0% since the description never references the parameter directly.
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 the tool performs 'Jurisdiction and supply chain dependency analysis for one robot, built on its software stack' and lists specific analysis types (jurisdiction concentration, lock-in, export control, cloud dependency). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on hardware or mechanical aspects, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. While it mentions 'for one robot', it does not contrast with other get_* tools (e.g., hardware_get_dependency_profile) or list conditions for use. The reader must infer when this analysis is appropriate based on the software stack focus.
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.