detect_silence_candidates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the heuristics used but does not disclose whether the tool modifies the timeline, what it returns (e.g., list of clip IDs), or if it requires any permissions. The non-destructive nature is implied but not confirmed.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It is concise without being overly minimal. However, it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness (e.g., mentioning output type).

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of candidate clips, their timestamps, or confidence scores). It also lacks information on whether the detection is performed on the entire timeline or only selected areas. The description feels incomplete for a detection tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions. The description adds context by explaining how parameters relate to heuristics (e.g., min_gap_seconds corresponds to gap detection), but does not introduce new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool detects potential silence/dead air using specific heuristics like gaps, ultra-short clips, name patterns, and duration anomalies. It distinguishes itself from siblings such as 'detect_gaps' and 'find_short_cuts' by combining multiple indicators.

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 identifying silence candidates but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'detect_gaps' or 'remove_silence_candidates'. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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