detect_silence_candidates

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lists heuristics but does not disclose whether the tool modifies the timeline, performance considerations, or output format. Adequate for a detection tool but not rich.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the main purpose. Concise with no wasted words. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but very 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?

Missing output format description; given no output schema, the description should mention what the tool returns (e.g., list of clips with reasons). Sibling remove_silence_candidates suggests it produces candidates, but not explicit.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about heuristics but does not link them to parameters (e.g., which heuristic uses 'patterns'?). No additional semantic value beyond 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 it detects potential silence/dead air using specific heuristics (gaps, ultra-short clips, name patterns, duration anomalies). This distinguishes it from related siblings like detect_gaps.

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 its usage for detecting silence but does not explicitly guide when to use it over alternatives (e.g., detect_gaps) or when not to use it. No context on prerequisites or post-processing.

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