speaker_score_tool

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no score range or threshold semantics, no indication of whether this is a cheap local computation or an expensive model pass, no permission or session-state requirements. It does implicitly signal an analysis/read operation, which keeps it above 1, but the disclosure is thin.

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, so nothing needs cutting. But its brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline, which caps the score in the same way the 'Process' example is capped.

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 description still omits parameter meaning, relationship to sibling speaker tools, and any behavioral constraints. For a tool with 3 required params and zero annotation or schema-description support, this is not enough for confident invocation.

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 four parameters, so the description must compensate and mostly does not. 'Time window' loosely maps to start_sec/end_sec, but track_id and project_path are never mentioned, nor are units or whether the window is on a specific track. Only marginal meaning is added over 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 gives a specific verb ('Score') and the object of scoring ('a time window matches the expected speaker'), which is more than a tautology. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like speaker_compare_window_tool, speaker_compare_pair_tool, or speaker_attribute_tool, all of which sound like speaker-similarity scoring. An agent cannot reliably pick this tool over those without opening 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for a similar comparison task. Given the dense cluster of speaker_* tools (compare_window, compare_pair, gate_track, attribute), the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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