seek

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. 'Current track' implies a track must already be loaded, but nothing is said about error behavior when nothing is playing, whether playback resumes after the seek, or what the response looks like. This leaves meaningful gaps for a playback-mutation 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 short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted prose. The second sentence is largely redundant with the schema's required-field marker, costing a little value.

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?

For a simple two-parameter playback tool this is adequate but thin: no annotations and no output schema mean the description should at least clarify preconditions and post-seek behavior. It covers the core action but omits the operational context an agent needs.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented (device_id from get_devices, position_ms in milliseconds). The description adds no format or boundary detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and target: jump to a position within the current track. This is clearly distinct from siblings like next, previous, and play. It stops short of naming alternatives, but the action is unambiguous.

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 only guidance is 'Needs position_ms,' which merely restates that the parameter is required (already enforced by the schema). There is no indication of when to use seek versus play/next/previous, nor any precondition such as playback needing an active track.

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