detect_silence

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so thoroughly: it reveals it runs locally via child_process rather than through Premiere's API, requires ffmpeg on PATH, fails with an explicit error if ffmpeg is missing, and performs no cutting or modification. It also explicitly says all audio tools in the codebase only write levels and never read them, which is valuable behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core function, then efficiently covers the key caveat about Premiere's API, the ffmpeg dependency, the non-destructive behavior, and downstream usage. Every sentence adds distinct value and none is redundant with the 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers nearly everything an agent needs: dependencies, failure mode, side effects, and follow-up actions. The only minor gap is that the returned 'intervals' are not structurally described (e.g., start/end fields), though the name and usage are clear enough for most calls.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters and defaults. The description mostly restates those semantics (direct path vs project item ID, dBFS threshold, minimum duration) but does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Analyzes a media file's audio for silent stretches') using a named implementation (ffmpeg's silencedetect filter). It explicitly distinguishes itself from write-only audio tools in the codebase and from any Premiere scripting API, and clarifies it is detection-only, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling 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 gives explicit context for when to use this tool: when silent stretches need to be detected, and notes that Premiere's own scripting API cannot do this. It also names the follow-up tools (split_clip/ripple_delete/razor_timeline_at_time) if removal is desired, and states prerequisites like ffmpeg on PATH.

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