seek_relative

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether seeking changes the current address for subsequent commands, whether it fails/clamps at boundaries, or what happens without a session_id. The one-sentence description leaves the entire behavioral profile unspecified.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no waste, but its brevity borders on under-specification given the 0% schema coverage.

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. However, for a state-mutating navigation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description omits critical details: offset units, negative offsets, session scoping, and bounds behavior. It is inadequate for an agent to call it reliably.

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% for two parameters. The description does not explain the 'offset' unit (bytes? instructions?) or sign semantics (can it be negative to seek backwards?), and says nothing about session_id's role or default. It adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (seek) and the modifier (relative to current position), distinguishing it from the sibling 'seek' which is presumably absolute. However, the target domain (a debug session / binary buffer) is not stated, leaving some ambiguity.

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 phrase 'relative to current position' implies usage but does not state when to use this versus the plain 'seek' sibling, nor does it mention session binding despite a session_id parameter. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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