seek

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Seek to a position' without mentioning side effects, prerequisites (e.g., track must be playing), or error conditions. This is minimal disclosure.

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 concise with a front-loaded main action followed by parameter details. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant information.

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?

While the description covers the main action and parameter meanings, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., an active track) and error handling. The presence of an output schema may mitigate missing return value info, but overall it is minimally viable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds clear semantics for both parameters: position_ms is 'Position in milliseconds' and device_id explains default behavior. This provides necessary 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?

The description clearly states 'Seek to a position in the currently playing track,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like next_track, previous_track, and play, as it focuses on arbitrary positioning 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 implies usage for seeking within the current track but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like next_track or previous_track. No 'when-not' or alternative conditions are provided.

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