Check how long a CoppeliaSim simulation has been running by retrieving the elapsed time in seconds, enabling time-based decisions and synchronization.
Devuelve el tiempo de simulación transcurrido, en segundos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 the full burden. It implies a read-only operation (returns a value) but does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, or dependencies like simulation state. However, for a simple getter, this is minimally adequate.
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?
A single concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and unit of measurement. No filler, perfectly front-loaded.
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 simplicity (no params, clear return value in seconds) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It doesn't explain potential failure modes, but for a trivial getter this is acceptable.
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 the description needs to explain none. Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description correctly omits parameter details, and there is no ambiguity.
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?
Clearly states it returns the elapsed simulation time in seconds. The verb 'Devuelve' and resource 'tiempo de simulación transcurrido' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'estado_simulacion' by focusing specifically on time.
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 versus alternatives, or any prerequisites such as requiring a running simulation. The description is purely functional with no context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.