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. It does not state whether seeking requires an active session, how the session_id default (null) is resolved, whether seeking is a pure read/state change, or what 'new position' concretely means. These are significant gaps for a session-mutating navigation tool.

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?

Two very short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target. No padding, though the terseness edges toward under-specification rather than disciplined brevity.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description at least says a new position is returned. However, with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and a session-scoped sibling set, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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% and both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'address or symbol (s)' which hints at the address parameter's accepted forms, but it omits the session_id parameter entirely and gives no format syntax for either.

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 verb (seek) and a target (address or symbol), which is clearer than the bare name but remains ambiguous in a reverse-engineering context. It does not explicitly say it moves the cursor/execution position, nor does it distinguish itself from its sibling seek_relative.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus seek_relative or get_current_address. The agent must infer that seek is the absolute-position variant and seek_relative is the relative one, with no textual support.

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