Advance time

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent already knows this mutates state without being destructive. The description usefully adds that it returns the new state and that steps run at a fixed 60/sec by default, but it omits whether the call blocks, what happens at the 36000 step ceiling, or any error behavior.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, no filler. The default rate and return value are packed in without wasting words.

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 mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient, and it even discloses the return of new state despite no output schema. It stops short of explaining blocking behavior or failure modes, which is a minor residual gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by stating the fixed rate (60 steps per second by default), which tells the agent how to translate a desired duration into a step count.

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: advancing the simulation by fixed steps, with the default rate named. It is distinguishable from game_pause/game_stop, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with nearby siblings like game_frames or game_start, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus game_frames, game_start, or game_pause, nor any precondition such as requiring the game to be running. The default step rate hints at typical use but does not route the agent between alternatives.

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