cast_seek

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint false) and idempotent (idempotentHint true). The description adds little beyond the schema's sign convention; it does not disclose side effects, whether the seek is relative or absolute, or error behavior (e.g., out-of-range). With the bar lowered by annotations, the description still fails to provide meaningful behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action. It could be slightly richer without bloating, but it is not verbose or redundant.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. It does not address return values, error conditions, or whether the seek is relative to current position, but these are partially inferable from the schema. For a low-complexity tool, this is marginal but not severely deficient.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema description clearly defines the 'seconds' parameter with sign meaning. The tool description adds nothing beyond restating the action; it does not elaborate on units, range, or edge cases. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 ('avance' / 'recule') and resource ('la video'), making it clear this is a seek operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling controls like pause/resume/stop by implying time-based navigation, though it does not explicitly name any alternative. A 4 is warranted because the purpose is clear but not fully elaborated (e.g., relative vs absolute seeking).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It merely states what it does, with no mention of preconditions, when to prefer it over other cast operations, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the sibling names, which is thin guidance.

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