analyze_label_sounds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully explains the detection algorithm (volume threshold distinguishing sound from silence) but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether the tool mutates project state by adding labels to tracks, what it returns (void vs. label data), or whether it requires an audio selection. It describes the 'how' but not the 'what happens' regarding side effects.

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 efficiently structured with the core purpose stated first, followed by a clear Args section. There is no redundant or filler text; every sentence conveys essential information about functionality or parameter semantics.

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 three simple numeric parameters are well-documented, the description meets basic needs. However, with no output schema provided, the description fails to explain what the tool returns or its side effects (e.g., 'adds a label track to the current project'). This omission leaves a significant gap for an agent trying to understand the full impact of invocation.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage (only titles and types). The description fully compensates by providing detailed semantic explanations for all three parameters in the Args section: threshold_db (volume threshold in dB), min_silence_duration (seconds of silence required), and min_sound_duration (minimum sound length), including their default values.

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 the tool 'Automatically label regions of sound separated by silence,' providing a specific verb (label) and resource (sound regions separated by silence). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like analyze_beat_finder or label_regular_intervals by specifying the silence-based detection method, though it could explicitly contrast with other labeling 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like label_regular_intervals (time-based labeling), transcribe_to_labels (transcription-based labeling), or label_add (manual labeling). No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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