software_get_system_statusHealth of the SOFTWARE layer: software profiles loaded, software 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by specifying the exact health metrics included (profiles loaded, signal counts, load errors). With annotations handling safety, this provides meaningful additional context.
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?
Two efficient sentences: the first states the purpose and content, the second clarifies sibling differentiation. No fluff, every word 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?
For a parameterless, read-only status tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It describes what the tool reports, distinguishes it from siblings, and the lack of output schema is acceptable since the description gives a high-level idea of the returned data.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids addressing parameters since there are none, and the schema is already complete with no properties.
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 this tool reports health of the SOFTWARE layer, listing specific metrics (software profiles loaded, signal counts, load errors). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling status tools by noting that each layer has its own status tool reporting different layers, not 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 implies usage: use this for software-layer health status. It provides context that hardware and mechanical layers have their own status tools, effectively differentiating when to use this vs siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or alternative tools by name.
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.