Detect silence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that both silent and non-silent spans are reported, which hints at the result shape, but it says nothing about the form of the output (time ranges vs. durations) or whether thresholds in the schema change what is returned.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the primary behavior leads and the practical motivation follows. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 read-only analysis tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description conveys what is detected and why it matters. The only real gap is that it does not describe the returned structure, which matters for feeding results into a split operation.

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%, including units, ranges, and defaults for noiseDb, minDuration, start, and end. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb (finds) plus a concrete resource: silent regions and the sound regions between them, with parenthetical examples of what counts as sound (speech, music). It is clear enough to distinguish from neighbors like detect_black and detect_scenes by domain, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'Useful to remove pauses or split at gaps' implies the intended workflow but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing and does not point at alternatives such as detect_scenes or set_cut_points for the splitting step. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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