mcp_opendaw_analyze_spectrum

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently describes a read-only analysis. It elaborates on what bands and global descriptors are computed, and mentions the return structure, providing good behavioral detail. No contradictions, but could mention that it requires a valid WAV file.

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?

Moderately long but well-organized with bullet points and examples. Front-loaded with purpose and followed by useful details. Could be slightly more concise, but no unnecessary repetition.

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, readOnlyHint annotation, and output schema (present), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what it returns (bands + global descriptors + suggestions), and how to use it. No gaps.

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 description fully explains the single parameter 'filename' with both relative and absolute path options, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's bare 'string' type. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently.

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 'Spectral analysis of audio across 7 ISO frequency bands' and lists the specific bands and metrics, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like analyze_track by focusing on detailed frequency band analysis.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use after analyze_track for mix decisions' and provides concrete examples of when to use based on specific metric values (e.g., high low_high_ratio, low spectral_centroid), offering actionable guidance.

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