raw_seek

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does add a side-effect warning: 'May open a dialog or change project state.' However, this is vague and does not specify what state changes or what dialog may appear, so it is minimally transparent rather than fully disclosing 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?

Three short sentences front-load the purpose and then add necessary caveats. The phrase 'inspect the command name first' is somewhat vague, but the description is still compact and wastes no 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?

The description covers the action, the lack of arguments, and possible side effects, which is decent for a small tool. Yet 'Jump to a specified position' conflicts with 'no-argument' because no position value can be supplied, and the instruction to inspect the command name first is left unexplained. This creates real ambiguity for an agent with no annotations or output schema to fall back on.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description reinforces this with 'Static no-argument Audacity action,' so there is no parameter-semantics gap to compensate for. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 lead phrase 'Jump to a specified position in the audio' names a concrete action and resource, so the tool is not a tautology. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from position-related siblings like cursor_set_position or transport_set_cursor, but the seek action is identifiable.

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 offers only implied usage: a static, no-argument action for seeking. It never states when to choose this over the many cursor/position siblings, and 'inspect the command name first' is not actionable guidance for selecting the tool.

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