analyze_label_sounds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose operation semantics, label placement options, and a notable reliability caveat that several parameters are "not yet independently live-tested" and only mock-verified. However, it does not mention side effects on existing labels, whether a selection is required, or what the command ultimately returns.

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 organized into a one-sentence summary, a practical use case, a reliability caveat, and a clean Args list. It is longer than the minimum but every section contributes useful information, and the Args section is scannable.

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?

The description covers the operation, use case, parameter semantics, and even reliability caveats, which is unusually complete for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. It falls short only by not clarifying prerequisites such as existing selection/audio project state or whether existing labels are preserved or replaced.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does comprehensively: all eight parameters are individually explained with units, allowed values, and defaults. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema fields, including threshold in dB, durations in seconds, and label_type options.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Automatically label regions of sound separated by silence." This uniquely distinguishes the tool from manual label tools like label_add or interval-based label_regular_intervals, and the additional label_type details clarify the exact scope.

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?

It gives a clear use case: "A good starting point for segmenting a long recording," and explains when to use label_type="between" for trimming silences with label_delete_regions. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name direct alternative tools, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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