Advance the simulation by n physics steps using dt from sim_status (default 1/120 s). Use it to progress time in Isaac Sim and observe resulting state changes.
Advance the simulation n physics steps (dt from sim_status, default 1/120 s).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that dt is taken from sim_status with a 1/120 s default, which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about blocking behavior, whether stepping mutates shared state, or performance for large n.
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 front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the timing detail in a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.
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 one-parameter, zero-required tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, the parameter, and the timestep source, which is enough to call it correctly. Only the when-to-use-vs-siblings gap remains.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines n as the number of physics steps and clarifies that the timestep is not a parameter but is derived from sim_status. The only omission is the schema's default of 60 for n.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Advance the simulation') and quantifies the unit of work as 'n physics steps', so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like sim_play or sim_up, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
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 the use case (incremental stepping of the sim) but never says when to choose this over sim_play (continuous run) or sim_up/sim_down. No preconditions or exclusions are given, so usage must be inferred from the verb alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.