detect_silence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose that results are silent ranges with source-time timestamps, which is useful non-obvious context. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it modifies or caches anything, permission requirements, or how expensive it is.

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 a single short fragment with zero wasted wording and the output concept is front-loaded. It is terse and under-specified, but from a pure conciseness/structure standpoint it is efficient.

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 four-parameter analysis tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is too thin. It gives the return concept but omits parameter meanings, scoping details, and behavioral constraints an agent needs to call it confidently.

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 the description does not explain any of the four parameters. It never clarifies project/asset scoping, the noise_db threshold, or the units/meaning of min_duration, so the agent gets no semantic help beyond the bare titles and defaults.

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 names the resource (an asset's audio) and the result (silent [start, end] ranges in source time), so it is clear this detects silence rather than loudness or waveform. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as remove_silences or audio_loudness, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent can infer from the name that it is for finding silent ranges, but the description provides no routing help among the many audio/timeline siblings.

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