Read a proximity sensor to obtain detection status, distance, and contact point for obstacle avoidance in CoppeliaSim simulations.
Lee un sensor de proximidad: si detecta algo, a qué distancia y en qué punto.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sensor | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries some burden. It indicates a read operation (implying no side effects) and lists the output fields, but does not mention potential errors, permission requirements, or whether the sensor must exist.
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 a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's function and expected output. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not clarify how to interpret the parameter, what the output looks like in detail, or any error conditions. The tool is simple, but the description leaves gaps for successful usage.
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 single parameter 'sensor' has no description in the schema, and the tool description does not explain what it represents (e.g., name, ID, or how to specify it). With 0% schema coverage and no compensation in the description, parameter semantics are inadequate.
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 reads a proximity sensor and specifies the output: detection status, distance, and point. It distinguishes from sibling 'comprobar_sensor_proximidad' by using 'lee' (reads) and detailing what data is returned.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'comprobar_sensor_proximidad'. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or context for using this read operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.