mcp_opendaw_analyze_phase

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description details the specific checks, explains the significance of low vs high frequency phase issues, and describes the input parameter, providing rich behavioral context.

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 clear opening summary and bullet points, front-loading key information. It is slightly verbose but not excessively so.

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 single parameter and existence of an output schema, the description covers input details, analysis specifics, and return type. It is mostly complete but could mention file format restrictions beyond WAV.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning by specifying that the filename must be a WAV file in the exports directory or an absolute path, which the schema alone does not provide.

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 performs per-band phase analysis, enumerating specific checks (coherence, polarity, delay, mono compatibility) and distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools by focusing on phase and mono issues.

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 implies usage for diagnosing phase problems and mono compatibility but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like analyze_stereo or analyze_spectrum, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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