mcp_opendaw_classify_drum_pattern

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It details inputs (note positions, pitches via GM map, velocities), outputs (classification, confidence, features, per-bar breakdown), and lists pattern types. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (no side effects), but the context implies it is analytical.

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: one-sentence summary, details on analysis method, pattern list, use cases, then parameter explanations. It is concise at ~120 words with no redundancy.

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 analytical nature and the presence of an output schema, the description covers input selection, analysis parameters, output format (classification with confidence, features, per-bar breakdown), and usage scenarios. It does not detail the output schema fields but that is handled by the structured output.

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, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: unit_index (AU index, -1 for all), track_index, region_index with defaults. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool classifies drum patterns from MIDI notes, lists specific pattern types (e.g., four-on-the-floor, breakbeat), and provides the GM drum map. This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_dynamics' or 'transcribe_drums'.

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 lists use cases: understanding patterns, matching genre expectations, verifying patterns, and suggesting variations. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for related tasks like drum transcription.

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