mcp_opendaw_find_overlapping_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only query returning overlapping notes, with no side effects. It does not explicitly state read-only, but the description implies it.

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 compact (6 lines), with purpose first, then usage, then parameter list. Every sentence adds value, 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 low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. It could mention the output schema's structure, but that is not essential.

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?

All 6 parameters are described with clear definitions despite the schema having 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning (e.g., pitch '60 = C4', from_beat and to_beat as time range boundaries).

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 finds notes overlapping a given pitch and time range within a note region. It uses specific verb+resource ('Find notes that overlap') and distinguishes from siblings like list_notes or filter_notes by focusing on overlap detection.

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 mentions two specific use cases: collision checking and harmony/chord finding. It implies when to use this tool but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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