nearest_zero_crossing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose an important behavioral trait: the search is independent of the current selection. However, it does not mention return format, boundary behavior (e.g., whether it can return before or after the given time), or any assumptions about the audio/track 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?

Two sentences plus a one-line Args note carry all the essential information with no filler. The key purpose and scoping fact (independent of selection) are front-loaded.

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 single-parameter utility tool this is nearly complete: purpose, usage context, alternative, and parameter semantics are covered. The main gap is the lack of an explicit return-value description, since there is no output schema, but the phrase 'zero-crossing time' makes the result reasonably inferable.

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 0%, and the description compensates by explaining that 'time' is in seconds and that the search happens 'near' that time. This adds real meaning beyond the schema's bare number type, though it could specify valid range or format constraints.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Find the nearest zero-crossing time') and names its intended use ('precise, click-free edit points'). It also differentiates from the sibling select_zero_crossing by noting independence from the current selection, so the agent can distinguish it without inspecting other 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 states when this tool is appropriate: when a precise, click-free edit point is needed and when selection independence matters. It names select_zero_crossing as the contrasting alternative, but it stops short of explicitly saying 'use select_zero_crossing when selection-dependent behavior is desired,' leaving a small inference.

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