Detect Audio Transients

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the results are approximate candidates, not authoritative beats, and the tool does not modify a timeline. Slightly weakened by the tension with readOnlyHint=false, which hints it may still write state (e.g., caches) even though the description emphasizes non-mutation — but this is not a flat contradiction.

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 dense sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the caveats (probabilistic output, no timeline mutation) immediately after. Nothing is redundant with the title.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the schema covers all four parameters. The description supplies scope and non-mutation guarantees, leaving only minor gaps such as whether results are deterministic or how they should be reviewed downstream.

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 media_path, maximum_events, threshold_dbfs and minimum_interval_seconds are already fully documented with ranges and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb+resource ('find probable beat or edit-point transients from decoded audio peaks') with the mechanism named. It also distinguishes itself from sibling detectors like detect_beats by explicitly disclaiming musical beat-grid accuracy, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 frames the output as 'candidates for editorial review' and rules out musical beat-grid use, implicitly routing that need to detect_beats. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool or states the conditions under which this should be preferred over detect_beats or detect_silence.

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