jump_to_chapter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly states that the tool starts playback, can resume the audiobook context at a chapter, and that dry_run previews without touching playback. It does not fully explain what a successful run returns or what happens when no device is active, but the core side effect is disclosed.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, the chapter numbering is clarified immediately, and the dry_run safety behavior is given a single compact sentence. Every part earns its place.

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 essential action and the dry_run safety mechanism, but there is no output schema and no annotation coverage. It does not mention expected return values, failure modes, or prerequisites such as requiring an active device. For a playback-mutating tool, an agent would benefit from at least a note about what a successful invocation reports back.

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 100%, so the schema already documents audiobook_id, chapter, device_id, and dry_run clearly. The description adds little beyond reinforcing 1-based chapter semantics and the dry_run preview behavior, which means it stays at the baseline rather than adding meaningful parameter insight.

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 names a specific verb ('Start playing'), a concrete resource ('audiobook chapter'), and clarifies the 1-based numbering plus the dry_run option. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, but the audiobook-chapter focus clearly sets it apart from generic playback tools like play or play_on.

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 when to use the tool: when an agent wants to start playing a specific audiobook chapter or preview that action via dry_run. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention alternative tools such as play_on, seek, episode_resume, or resume_playback_position, so an agent must infer selection from the audiobook-specific wording.

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