detect_silence

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

The description unambiguously states 'Analysis only — nothing in the project or on the timeline is modified', but the annotations declare readOnlyHint: false. This is a direct contradiction: the description claims read-only behavior while the annotation suggests the opposite. Score 1 is required due to the 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?

The description is two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, then add a crucial dependency note (ffmpeg). Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or 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?

The description explains the tool's purpose, return value (silences and complementary segments), and the ffmpeg dependency, which covers the essentials for a simple analysis tool. However, it does not mention the need to provide exactly one of media_path or project_item_id, though the schema describes that. Overall, it is nearly complete for its complexity.

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 input schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description does not add any semantic detail about parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate: the schema carries the burden.

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 ranges in a media file'), and clearly states the dual output (silences and complementary segments worth keeping). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scene_edit_detection, which has a different analysis purpose.

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 this tool: it is analysis-only and requires ffmpeg on PATH. It also explains why ffmpeg is needed, which helps the agent understand prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions.

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