Calculate rise time, settling time, overshoot, error, and optional control-effort metrics from time, signal, reference, and control data to assess step response.
Calculate rise, settling, overshoot, error, and optional control-effort metrics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| time | Yes | ||
| signal | Yes | ||
| control | No | ||
| reference | Yes | ||
| saturation_limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not say what happens to error when reference is a step target, how saturation_limit affects the metrics, whether empty/mismatched time and signal arrays are handled, or any sampling-rate expectations. Only the word 'optional' hints at the role of control.
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 no filler, and the metric list is the most useful part placed first. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a five-parameter analysis tool.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But with no annotations and zero documented parameters, the description leaves key invocation details (units, array alignment, reference semantics, saturation behavior) unaddressed, which is inadequate for a five-parameter tool.
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% across five parameters. The description implies 'control' is optional (via 'optional control-effort metrics') but never explains time, signal, reference, or saturation_limit, all of which are non-obvious in the control-analysis domain. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 gives a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource (step-response metrics) and enumerates the exact metrics produced (rise, settling, overshoot, error, control-effort), which is enough to distinguish it from the simulate_* siblings that run models rather than analyze captured data. However, it never explicitly names those siblings or states that it operates on pre-recorded time/signal series.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus simulate_xcos_model or simulate_first_order_model, no prerequisites (e.g. data must come from a completed run), and no mention of the reference value's role in selecting the invocation. Usage must be inferred entirely from the domain.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.