seek

Does 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 only states that seeking occurs; it does not reveal whether this is a mutation that could fail without active playback, whether it affects pause state, or what happens if no track is loaded. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a major omission.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero redundant words. It efficiently states the core action and target resource without padding, which is exactly appropriate for a tool this simple.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify operational context such as requiring an active track, whether the pause state is preserved, and how the device_id interacts with seeking. The description omits all of this, leaving an agent unable to fully anticipate failure modes or side effects beyond the simple schema.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about position_ms (e.g., unit, range beyond minimum 0) or device_id (e.g., when it is required or optional behavior). The schema already documents these fields adequately, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 ('Seek') and resource ('current track'), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like play, pause, skip_next, and skip_previous. The purpose is unambiguous and no other sibling performs position-seeking within a track.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites. It does not mention that playback must be active, that a device may need to be specified, or that seeking behaves differently when paused. The usage context is entirely left to inference from the schema and sibling names.

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