Detect silence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by stating that it returns silent ranges plus non-silent segments to keep, giving a clue about the output structure. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it modifies files), performance characteristics, or how parameters affect results beyond the schema, making it adequate but not rich.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word serves a purpose. It efficiently conveys the tool's function, return value, and a practical use case without any fluff or redundancy.

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 relatively simple detection tool with three schema-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, what it returns, and how to use the results. It could optionally mention the format of the returned ranges or how thresholds behave, but this is adequately covered by the schema and overall context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it does contextualize the purpose of the tool in a way that indirectly explains why noise_db and min_duration matter. No additional parameter insight is given.

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 ('Find') and resource ('silent stretches in the audio track'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the return of keep-segments and the downstream use with trim_video/concat_videos, clearly setting it apart from other detection or editing 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 context for when to use the tool ('useful for cutting dead air') and suggests a workflow with trim_video/concat_videos, which helps the agent understand its purpose relative to alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention any alternative detection tools, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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