find_silences

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden well: 'Nothing is changed' makes the non-destructive nature unambiguous, and it explains that defaults derive from the user's own hand-trimmed style. It does not describe the shape of the returned pause list, which is the remaining gap for a tool whose primary output is that list.

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?

Front-loaded with the core distinction (dry run, nothing changed), then defaults, then per-parameter semantics. Every clause carries information; there is no filler.

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 zero-annotation tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, defaults, and all four parameters. Missing only units of measure and any hint about the returned pause entries, both of which the agent would otherwise have to discover by calling.

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: each of the four parameters gets meaning, with concrete anchors like '-30 catches breaths, -40 only near-silence' and the distinction between air left after a word vs before the next. Units (seconds vs milliseconds) are never stated, which is the one real ambiguity left.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('list pauses in the storyline clips' audio') and frames itself explicitly as the 'dry run for remove_silences', which cleanly separates it from that sibling. An agent knows exactly what it gets back without opening the schema.

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 names the alternative (remove_silences), states this variant changes nothing, and tells the agent that settings come from get_style unless overridden ('pass values only to override'). That is an explicit when-to-use and when-to-override rule, not an inference.

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