analyze_label_sounds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects, and it does so explicitly: it adds labels to the project's label track and creates the track if needed. It also reveals that the operation mutates project state and points to label_list for reading results, but it does not mention whether existing labels are preserved or if there are any destructive consequences.

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 well-structured and efficient: a clear two-sentence purpose summary, a high-level side-effect note, and a compact argument list. Every part adds information, with no filler or redundant restatement.

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?

All five parameters are covered with defaults and semantics, and the description tells the agent how to retrieve the results afterward via label_list. It is slightly incomplete only in not addressing edge cases like what happens when no sounds/silences are found or how existing labels are affected.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: threshold_db includes range and default, measurement lists allowed values, min_silence_duration and min_label_interval include units, and label_type explains each option's meaning. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific action: detect sounds separated by silence and add a label for each one, with label_type determining whether sounds or silences are labeled. It clearly distinguishes itself from generic label tools by focusing on silence-separated sound detection.

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 indicates a clear use case and even tells the agent to call label_list afterward to read the detected regions. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over siblings like analyze_beat_finder, label_regular_intervals, or transcribe_to_labels, nor does it state when not to use it.

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