mcp_opendaw_capture_realtime

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool returns file path and size or an error if the engine is not running. However, it does not disclose whether overwriting occurs, any permissions needed, maximum duration, or the source of the recording (e.g., master output). This is adequate but could be more thorough.

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 relatively concise with three short paragraphs. It front-loads the purpose and then provides parameter details and return info. There is no fluff, but the second paragraph could be slightly streamlined as it partially repeats the first line. Overall well-structured.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema but return value mentioned), the description covers the main aspects: what it does, prerequisite, parameters, and return. It does not mention potential overwrite behavior or recording source, but it is sufficient for the agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema has 0% coverage, but the description explains both parameters: 'duration_seconds: How long to record (float, e.g. 10.0)' and 'filename: Output WAV filename (without extension).' This adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying the type, example, and that the extension should not be included. It could additionally mention allowed characters or default path, but it is helpful.

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 'Capture realtime audio output from the DAW engine' with a specific verb and resource. It further explains that it records live audio for a given duration and is useful for capturing playback with effects and automation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like export functions or creation tools.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite: 'The engine must be running (call start_engine first).' It also provides context for when to use the tool ('useful for capturing live playback...'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives.

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