Compare audio from two time windows to determine whether the same speaker is present in both.
Compare the voices in two time windows to check they are the same speaker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_a | Yes | ||
| end_b | Yes | ||
| start_a | Yes | ||
| start_b | Yes | ||
| track_a | Yes | ||
| track_b | Yes | ||
| 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 / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project_path",
- "track_a",
- "start_a",
- "end_a",
- "track_b",
- "start_b",
- "end_b"
-]New value: +[
+ "track_a",
+ "start_a",
+ "end_a",
+ "track_b",
+ "start_b",
+ "end_b"
+]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. It says what is compared but not whether the operation is read-only, whether it returns a similarity score or boolean, what threshold decides 'same speaker', or whether results are cached/persisted. Thin for a 7-param analysis tool.
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 zero waste that puts the goal first. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine 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-value explanation is not required, but for a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description leaves too much unstated: time units, window validity constraints, and the meaning of the six required coordinates.
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%, so the description must compensate. It implies the params form two windows (track_a/start_a/end_a and track_b/start_b/end_b) but gives no units (seconds?), no explanation of project_path, and no detail beyond the vague phrase 'two time windows'.
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 (Compare) and resource (voices in two time windows) plus the goal (check they are the same speaker). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling speaker_compare_window_tool or speaker_score_tool, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 mention of alternatives such as speaker_compare_window_tool or speaker_score_tool. The agent must infer usage purely from the description's intent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.