mcp_opendaw_analyze_song_structure

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

The description explains the behavior: scans all note tracks, computes per-bar features, groups consecutive bars, and classifies segments. It also mentions the return format (per-segment classification with bar range, density, energy, feature summary). The annotation readOnlyHint: true is consistent with the analysis nature. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations.

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: first sentence states the core action, then details the method, then lists essential use cases, finally explains parameters. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or filler content.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: input parameters, process, and return values. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to invoke it.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully explains both parameters: unit_index ('AU index (-1 = all AUs)') and bars_per_segment ('Minimum bars per structural segment... groups of bars with similar density are merged...'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema 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 song structure by segmenting MIDI content into structural parts.' It details the method (bar-by-bar, per-bar features, grouping, classification) and lists specific section types (intro/verse/chorus/bridge/outro/breakdown). This distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like analyze_dynamics or analyze_harmonic_rhythm.

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 use cases: 'Essential for: understanding existing arrangements, finding where sections change, verifying song form, and planning variations or extensions.' This guides the agent on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives.

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