seek_session_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does reveal a non-obvious trait—no OS audio is produced—and hints at a visual effect from selection_json. However, it does not state whether seeking affects playback state, changes selection, or has other side effects.

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 short sentences with no filler, front-loads the core action, and keeps the optional parameter note separate. Every word 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?

Although the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description does not provide enough to correctly populate the required parameters: project_path is unexplained, playhead_sec lacks units/format, and selection_json's expected structure is unclear. The description alone is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters, but it only vaguely implies playhead_sec via 'seek the playhead' and mentions selection_json as 'highlights a modifier.' project_path is completely undescribed, and playhead_sec units are unspecified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Seek') and resource ('open DAW playhead'), and the parenthetical 'no OS audio' helps distinguish it from playback-oriented siblings. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, so the differentiation is partial.

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 about when to use this tool versus related tools such as set_session_playing_tool, play_audio_tool, or set_session_selection_tool. The 'no OS audio' note is behavioral, not usage guidance, and no exclusions or alternative conditions are given.

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