Build and simulate the first-order model G(s)=1/(s+1) in Xcos, returning its numerical response.
Build and simulate G(s)=1/(s+1) in real Xcos, returning its numerical response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_samples | No | ||
| timeout_seconds | No | ||
| duration_seconds | 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 disclosure burden. "In real Xcos" usefully signals genuine execution rather than an analytical shortcut, but nothing is said about side effects (does it create/persist a model?), timeout behavior, or failure modes, which matter for a tool that runs a simulation.
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 that names the model and the output. It is efficient, though it slightly underspecifies rather than being padded.
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 no explanation, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the definition leaves the agent guessing about invocation semantics, runtime limits, and how it relates to its simulation siblings.
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% for three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains that duration_seconds sets the simulated time window, what max_samples caps, or how timeout_seconds interacts with the run — all of which are essential to calling it sensibly.
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 states a specific verb pair ("Build and simulate") and a specific resource (the fixed transfer function G(s)=1/(s+1)) executed in real Xcos. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling simulate_xcos_model, which simulates arbitrary models.
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 pick this over simulate_xcos_model or analyze_step_response. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this is a convenience shortcut for a canned first-order system or the preferred entry point, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.