mcp_opendaw_analyze_harmonic_rhythm

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

The description details the analysis process (identifying chords from MIDI notes using the same logic as identify_chords) and lists all output fields (chord change positions, durations, rate, density, etc.). Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the types of analysis performed.

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?

The description is well-structured with a concise opening, bullet points for output, usage guidance, parameter list, and return value note. It is informative without being overly verbose, though it could be slightly more concise by condensing some bullet points. Nonetheless, each sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, multiple output fields, relationship to other tools) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, inputs, outputs, usage relationships, and parameter details. It provides a complete picture for an AI agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter in a separate bullet: unit_index, track_index, region_index (with special values -1 and -2), group_tolerance (with default 0.25), and min_notes (with default 3). This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's parameter names and types.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Analyze harmonic rhythm — how fast chords change and where.' It lists specific outputs (chord change positions, durations, rate, density, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool identify_chords, which focuses on chord identification rather than temporal patterns. This provides a clear and distinct purpose.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance by listing companion tools: 'Use with: analyze_song_structure, reharmonize_progression, create_arrangement_variation.' It also explains how it complements identify_chords. While it does not explicitly state when not to use, the positive guidance is strong and helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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