detect_media_silence

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

With no annotations, description reveals it reads actual media files via ffmpeg, requires ffmpeg, and handles missing/unreadable media gracefully. Could be more explicit about read-only nature, but sufficient for safety.

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 sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds 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?

Tool has no output schema, and description lacks explicit mention of return format (e.g., list of silence ranges). However, core usage and behavior are sufficiently covered, and output can be inferred from purpose.

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% for all 4 parameters. Description adds no new per-parameter meaning beyond what schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool detects silence by analyzing source audio via ffmpeg silencedetect, and distinguishes it from sibling detect_silence_candidates which uses XML-only heuristics.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with sibling tool detect_silence_candidates, explains when to use this tool (actual media analysis) and notes requirement for ffmpeg and graceful handling of missing media.

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