mcp_opendaw_analyze_stereo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by detailing behavioral aspects (returns metrics, per-region width, mix suggestions) and does not contradict 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 with a summary, metric details, mix guidance, and args list. While somewhat long, every section adds unique value; a slight trim could improve conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema, the description appropriately covers parameter usage and metric interpretation, though it could mention prerequisites like file existence. Overall, it is comprehensive for a read-only analysis 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the filename parameter, including valid paths and constraints ('Name of the WAV file in the exports directory (without path), or absolute path to any WAV file'), adding essential meaning beyond the 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 explicitly states 'Stereo analysis of audio — width, L/R balance, mono compatibility, mid/side energy' and lists specific metrics, clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling analysis tools like analyze_phase and analyze_dynamics.

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 detailed 'Mix decision guidance' explaining when to use based on metric thresholds (e.g., stereo_width < 0.1 → narrow mix), but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use.

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