tick

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two behavioral effects: drives become naturally urgent and drift decays. It stops short of stating what else changes, whether the operation is reversible, or how concurrent/idle state is affected, leaving meaningful gaps for a state-mutating tool.

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?

It is a single short line with no filler and the core idea is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of terseness being the risk, but as a conciseness judgment it is efficient.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description must carry everything, and while it conveys the core effect it leaves unanswered what the return looks like and how the resulting state change interacts with sibling tools. Adequate for a single-param tool, but thin for a simulation-state mutation.

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 100% with a single optional 'seconds' parameter, so the schema already documents the input and the default. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names a specific operation (advancing time / a 'time-lapse heartbeat') and states its two effects (drives becoming naturally urgent and drift decaying), which is more than a tautology. However, the phrasing is domain jargon and it never distinguishes itself from closely related siblings like autostep or event, so an agent cannot easily tell which time-advancing tool to pick.

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?

It offers a trigger condition — 'call during idle/heartbeat' — which is real, if vague, usage guidance. It gives no exclusions and names no alternative, so the boundary with autostep/event/intervene is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.