timeline_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so richly. It discloses exclusions (Fairlight gain, fades, mute, timeline mix), coordinate semantics (cut end frames exclusive, timeline_* absolute), retiming rejection rather than guessing, decode cap, and external tool requirements. These details go well beyond what the input schema provides.

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 dense but well-organized: main purpose first, then actions, defaults, coordinate semantics, retiming policy, and dependencies. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler or repetition.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions), the description covers many critical aspects: actions, defaults, coordinate conventions, dependencies, and retiming behavior. However, it omits semantics for several parameters and does not explain action-specific outputs or prerequisites beyond the ffmpeg/afconvert note. The presence of an output schema helps, but parameter-level gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify 'action' values, whole_clip, and max_duration_seconds, but it leaves item_id, track_index, threshold_db, lead_offset_ms, min_silence_duration, and silence_threshold_db without explanation. Parameter names hint at meaning, but the description does not bridge the gap for a complex 9-parameter tool.

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: 'Analyze selected source PCM', and clarifies what is excluded (Fairlight gain, fades, mute, timeline mix). It enumerates distinct actions (analyze, silence_cuts, energy_envelope, export_slice, onsets, vad_clusters), which makes the tool's purpose concrete and separates it from generic timeline or render tools.

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 provides clear operational context: default range from playhead to clip end, whole_clip behavior, decode cap, and the ffmpeg/afconvert dependency. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the action list and source-PCM scope give enough context for an agent to select it over sibling tools like review_silence or apply_silence_cuts.

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