List words contaminated by another speaker's microphone bleed in a multitrack podcast project. Use speaker and time filters to isolate bleed-affected regions for transcript edits.
List words contaminated by another speaker's microphone bleed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_sec | No | ||
| speaker | No | ||
| track_id | No | ||
| start_sec | No | ||
| project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "project_path"
-]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers only a one-line statement. "List" weakly implies a read-only operation, but there is no disclosure of scope limits, permissions, whether results are filtered by project context, or what a caller should do with the output. This is a thin disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the definition is still incomplete for a 5-parameter, annotation-free tool. Nothing describes what the optional filters do or how results relate to the bleed-suppression and speaker-gate siblings.
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?
Five parameters (start_sec, end_sec, speaker, track_id, project_path) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. The time-range, speaker, and track filters materially change what the tool returns, yet an agent gets no explanation of their meaning, units, or defaults.
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?
States a specific verb ("List") and a specific resource ("words contaminated by another speaker's microphone bleed"), which separates it from generic word-list siblings like flagged_words_tool or low_audibility_words_tool. However, it never names those siblings or explains how bleed-contaminated words differ from flagged or low-audibility words, so the differentiation is left to inference.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent cannot tell whether this should be run before apply_bleed_suppression_tool, alongside align_retained_bleed_tool, or as a standalone diagnostic. Usage is only implied by the verb "List".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.