software_list_signalsList software supply chain signals across the panel, with filters. Panel-wide, not per robot: requires an access right on at least one robot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| domain | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| block_id | No | ||
| active_only | No | ||
| signal_type | No | ||
| jurisdiction | No | ||
| min_severity | No | ||
| component_type | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the access-right requirement and the panel-wide scope, which are behavioral constraints not covered by annotations. No contradictions.
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 highly concise, with two short sentences providing the essential purpose, scope, and prerequisite. No redundant information.
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?
The description is adequate for a list tool but lacks details on the filter parameters and the response format. With no output schema and only vague filter references, the agent may need additional context to fully utilize the tool, especially given the number of parameters.
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%, yet the description does not explain any of the 9 optional parameters. It merely says 'with filters' without defining what each filter (e.g., domain, block_id, signal_type, min_severity) does. The agent is left to guess parameter meanings from names alone.
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 lists software supply chain signals panel-wide, with filters. It explicitly differentiates from per-robot tools by saying 'Panel-wide, not per robot,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like software_get_robot_signals and hardware_list_signals.
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 usage context: it is for panel-wide signal listing, not per-robot, and requires an access right on at least one robot. It implies the alternative of using per-robot tools but does not explicitly name them.
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.