Audit consolidated dialogue tracks for VAD overlaps within a timeline window to verify alignment and detect sync issues before edits.
Audit consolidated dialogue tracks with VAD overlap on a timeline window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| diag_dir | No | ||
| project_path | No | ||
| window_end_sec | No | ||
| write_waveforms | No | ||
| window_start_sec | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not disclose whether this is read-only or mutating, whether it writes files, or what 'audit' produces. The write_waveforms parameter defaults to true, implying a side effect, but the description never mentions that any output is written to disk.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no padding, which is efficient, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. The core purpose is 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 5-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage and no schema descriptions, the description omits everything an agent needs beyond the bare purpose: side effects, permissions, and parameter meanings.
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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'Timeline window' loosely gestures at window_start_sec/window_end_sec but gives no units or defaults, and diag_dir, project_path, and write_waveforms are entirely unexplained.
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 verb ('audit') and a resource ('consolidated dialogue tracks with VAD overlap'), which is more than a tautology. However, 'audit' is ambiguous about what actually happens (report? check? mutate?) and it gives no differentiation from close siblings like ingest_suggest_alignment_tool, align_status_tool, or ingest_import_folder_tool.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as ingest_suggest_alignment_tool or align_status_tool, nor any stated prerequisites or sequencing within the ingest/align workflow. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.